[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42003-42008]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18660]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81495; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of Specified
Series of the Innovator Shield Strategy S&P 500 Monthly Index Series
and Innovator Ultra Shield Strategy S&P 500 Monthly Index Series Under
Rule 14.11(c)(3)

August 29, 2017.
    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 August 22, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') 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 filed a proposal to list and trade shares of series of
the Innovator Shield Strategy S&P 500 Monthly Index Series and
Innovator Ultra Shield Strategy S&P 500 Monthly Index Series under the
Academy Funds Trust, under Rule 14.11(c)(3) (``Index Fund Shares'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.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 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 list and trade shares (``Shares'') of each
series of the Innovator Shield Strategy S&P 500 ETF (collectively, the
``Shield Funds'') and Innovator Ultra Shield Strategy S&P 500 ETF
(collectively, the ``Ultra Shield Funds'') (each a ``Fund'' and,
collectively, the ``Funds'') under Rule 14.11(c)(3), which governs the
listing and trading of Index Fund Shares on the Exchange. In total, the
Exchange is proposing to list and trade Shares of twelve monthly series
of the Innovator Shield Strategy S&P 500 Monthly Index Series and
twelve monthly series of the Innovator Ultra Shield Strategy S&P 500
Monthly Index Series. Each Fund will be an index-based exchange traded
fund (``ETF'').
    The Shares will be offered by Academy Funds Trust (the ``Trust''),
which was established as a Delaware statutory trust on October 17,
2007. The Trust is registered with the Commission as an investment
company and has filed a registration statement on Form N-1A
(``Registration Statement'') with the Commission on behalf of the
Funds.\3\ Each Fund intends to qualify each year as a regulated
investment company (a ``RIC'') under Subchapter M of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Post-Effective Amendment Nos. 45 and 46 to Registration
Statement on Form N-1A for the Trust, dated May 15, 2017 (File Nos.
333-146827 and 811-22135). The descriptions of the Fund and the
Shares contained herein are based on information in the Registration
Statement.
    \4\ 26 U.S.C. 851.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each Shield Fund's investment objective is to track, before fees
and expenses, the performance of its respective index (the ``Shield
Index''). Each Ultra Shield Fund's investment objective is to track,
before fees and

expenses, the performance of its respective index (the ``Ultra Shield
Index''). Innovator Capital Management LLC (the ``Advisor'') will act
as adviser to the Funds. Both the Shield Index and the Ultra Shield
Index (collectively, the ``Indexes'') are owned and operated by S&P Dow
Jones Indices, and were developed by the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'' or ``Index Provider'') in coordination with Milliman
Financial Risk Management LLC. The value of each Index is calculated
daily as of the close of trading hours on the New York Stock Exchange
by CBOE utilizing an option valuation model and data provided by CBOE.
Milliman Financial Risk Management LLC will act as sub-adviser for the
Funds (the ``Sub-Adviser'').
    The Indexes employ a ``defined outcome strategy'' that seeks to
provide investment returns that deliver one-to-one exposure to any
gains of the S&P 500 Price Return Index (``S&P 500''), up to a capped
amount, while protecting investors from S&P 500 losses of up to a
capped amount, as further described below. The Indexes will be composed
exclusively of FLexible EXchange Options (``FLEX Options'') linked to
the S&P 500. Defined outcome strategies are designed to participate in
market gains and losses within pre-determined ranges over a specified
period (i.e. point to point). These outcomes are predicated on the
assumption that an investment vehicle employing the strategy is held
for the designated outcome periods. As such, the Exchange is proposing
to list up to twelve monthly series of each of the Shield Funds and
Ultra Shield Funds.
    The Exchange is submitting this proposed rule change because the
Indexes do not meet all of the ``generic'' listing requirements of Rule
14.11(c)(3)(A)(i), applicable to the listing of Index Fund Shares based
upon an index of ``U.S. Component Stocks.'' \5\ Specifically, Rule
14.11(c)(3)(A)(i) sets forth the requirements to be met by components
of an index or portfolio of U.S. Component Stocks. Because the Index
consists of FLEX Options, rather than ``U.S. Component Stocks'' as
defined in Rule 14.11(c)(1)(D), the Index does not satisfy the
requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in Rule 14.11(c)(1)(D), the term ``U.S. Component
Stock'' shall mean an equity security that is registered under
Sections 12(b) or 12(g) of the Act, or an American Depositary
Receipt, the underlying equity security of which is registered under
Sections 12(b) or 12(g) of the Act.
    \6\ Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i)(e) provides that all securities in
the applicable index or portfolio shall be U.S. Component Stocks
listed on a national securities exchange and shall be NMS Stocks as
defined in Rule 600 under Regulation NMS of the Act. Each component
stock of the S&P 500 is a U.S. Component Stock that is listed on a
national securities exchange and is an NMS Stock. Options are
excluded from the definition of NMS Stock. The Funds and the Indexes
meet all of the requirements of the listing standards for Index Fund
Shares in Rule 14.11(c)(3), except the requirements in Rule
14.11(c)(3)(A)(i)(a)-(e), as the Index consists of options on U.S.
Component Stocks. The S&P 500 consists of U.S. Component Stocks and
satisfies the requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i)(a)-(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Shares will conform to the initial and continued listing
criteria under Rule 14.11(c), except that the Indexes will not meet the
requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i)(a)-(e) in that the Indexes will
consist of options based on U.S. Component Stocks (i.e., FLEX Options
that reference the S&P 500), rather than U.S. Component Stocks.
Innovator Shield S&P 500 ETF
    Under Normal Market Conditions,\7\ each Shield Fund will attempt to
achieve its investment objective of tracking, before fees and expenses,
the performance of its respective Shield Index. Each Shield Index
employs a ``defined outcome strategy'' that seeks to provide investment
returns that deliver one to one exposure to any gains of the S&P 500,
up to a capped amount, while protecting investors from S&P 500 losses
of up to 15%. Each Index will be composed exclusively of FLEX Options
that reference the S&P 500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As defined in Rule 14.11(i)(3)(E), the term ``Normal Market
Conditions'' includes, but is not limited to, the absence of trading
halts in the applicable financial markets generally; operational
issues causing dissemination of inaccurate market information or
system failures; or force majeure type events such as natural or
man-made disaster, act of God, armed conflict, act of terrorism,
riot or labor disruption, or any similar intervening circumstance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Defined outcome strategies are designed to participate in market
gains and losses within pre-determined ranges over a specified period
(i.e., point to point). These outcomes are predicated on the assumption
that an investment vehicle employing the strategy is held for the
designated outcome periods. The Shield Indexes will be composed of a
portfolio of FLEX Options linked to an underlying asset, the S&P 500,
that, when held for the specified period, seeks to produce returns
that, over a period of approximately one year, provide one to one
returns on the price appreciation of the S&P 500 up to a capped maximum
annualized return (the ``Cap Level''), while protecting investors from
the first 15% of S&P 500 losses.
    The FLEX Options comprising the Shield Indexes will first be
entered into on approximately the date of the Shield Fund's inception
and will automatically reset on approximately the one year anniversary
thereafter (each, an ``outcome period''). These FLEX Options have been
chosen to seek to provide investors, before fees and expenses, with the
following outcomes:
     If the S&P 500 appreciates over the outcome period: The
Shield Index seeks to provide a total return that matches the
percentage increase of the S&P 500, up to the Cap Level;
     If the S&P 500 decreases over the outcome period by 15% or
less: The Shield Index seeks to provide a total return of zero; and
     If the S&P 500 decreases over the outcome period by more
than 15%: The Shield Index seeks to provide a total return loss that is
15% less than the percentage loss on the S&P 500 with a maximum loss of
approximately 85%.
    These outcomes are sought through the effect of layering purchased
and written FLEX Options that comprise the Shield Index. Any FLEX
Options that are written by a Shield Fund pursuant to its respective
Shield Index that create an obligation to sell or buy an asset will be
offset with a position in FLEX Options purchased by the Shield Fund
pursuant to the Shield Index to create the right to buy or sell the
same asset such that the Shield Fund will always be in a net long
position. That is, any obligations of a Shield Fund created by its
writing of FLEX Options will be covered by offsetting positions in
other purchased FLEX Options. As the FLEX Options mature at the end of
each outcome period, they are replaced. By replacing FLEX Options
annually, each Shield Index seeks to ensure that investments made in a
given month during the current year buffer against negative returns of
the S&P 500 up to pre-determined levels in that same month of the
following year. The Shield Funds do not offer any protection against
declines in the S&P 500 exceeding 15% on an annualized basis.
Shareholders will bear all S&P 500 losses exceeding 15% on a one-to-one
basis.
    The value of the FLEX Options purchased by a Shield Fund in
accordance with the Index on any given day will be reflected in the
Shield Fund's net asset value (``NAV''). The FLEX Options owned by the
Shield Funds will have the same terms (i.e. same strike price and
expiration) for all investors of the Shield Fund within an outcome
period. The Cap Level is determined with respect to the applicable
Shield Index on the inception date of the Shield Fund and at the
beginning of each outcome period.

Innovator Ultra Shield Strategy S&P 500 ETF
    Under Normal Market Conditions, each Ultra Shield Fund will attempt
to achieve its investment objective of tracking, before fees and
expenses, the performance of its respective Ultra Shield Index. Each
Ultra Shield Index employs a ``defined outcome strategy'' that seeks to
provide investment returns that deliver one to one exposure to any
gains of the S&P 500, up to a capped amount, while protecting investors
from S&P 500 losses of between 5% and 35%. Each Index will be composed
exclusively of FLEX Options that reference the S&P 500.
    Defined outcome strategies are designed to participate in market
gains and losses within pre-determined ranges over a specified period
(i.e., point to point). These outcomes are predicated on the assumption
that an investment vehicle employing the strategy is held for the
designated outcome periods. The Ultra Shield Indexes will be composed
of a portfolio of FLEX Options linked to an underlying asset, the S&P
500, that, when held for the specified period, seeks to produce returns
that, over a period of approximately one year, provide one to one
returns on the price appreciation of the S&P 500 up to the Cap Level,
while protecting investors from between 5% and 35% of S&P 500 losses.
    The FLEX Options comprising the Ultra Shield Indexes will first be
entered into on approximately the date of the Shield Fund's inception
and will automatically reset on approximately the one year anniversary
thereafter (each, an ``outcome period''). These FLEX Options have been
chosen to seek to provide investors, before fees and expenses, with the
following outcomes:
     If the S&P 500 appreciates over the outcome period: The
Ultra Shield Index seeks to provide a total return that matches the
percentage increase of the S&P 500, up to the Cap Level;
     If the S&P 500 decreases over the outcome period by 5% or
less: The Ultra Shield Index seeks to provide a total return loss that
is equal to the percentage loss on the S&P 500;
     If the S&P 500 decreases over the outcome period by 5%-
35%: The Ultra Shield Index seeks to provide a total return loss of 5%;
and
     If the S&P If the S&P 500 decreases over the outcome
period by more than 35%: The Ultra Shield Index seeks to provide a
total return loss that is 30% less than the percentage loss on the S&P
500 with a maximum loss of approximately 70%.
    These outcomes are sought through the effect of layering purchased
and written FLEX Options that comprise an Ultra Shield Index. Any FLEX
Options that are written by an Ultra Shield Fund pursuant to its
respective Ultra Shield Index that create an obligation to sell or buy
an asset will be offset with a position in FLEX Options purchased by
the Ultra Shield Fund pursuant to the Ultra Shield Index to create the
right to buy or sell the same asset such that the Ultra Shield Fund
will always be in a net long position. That is, any obligations of an
Ultra Shield Fund created by its writing of FLEX Options will be
covered by offsetting positions in other purchased FLEX Options. As the
FLEX Options mature at the end of each outcome period, they are
replaced. By replacing FLEX Options annually, each Ultra Shield Index
seeks to ensure that investments made in a given month during the
current year buffer against negative returns of the S&P 500 up to pre-
determined levels in that same month of the following year. The Ultra
Shield Fund does not offer any protection against declines in the S&P
500 of less than 5% or exceeding 35% on an annualized basis thereafter.
Shareholders will bear all S&P 500 losses less than 5% and exceeding
35% on a one-to-one basis.
    The value of the FLEX Options purchased by the Ultra Shield Fund in
accordance with the Index on any given day will be reflected in the
Ultra Shield Fund's NAV. The FLEX Options owned by an Ultra Shield Fund
will have the same terms (i.e., same strike price and expiration) for
all investors of the Ultra Shield Fund within an outcome period. The
Cap Level is determined with respect to the Index on the inception date
of the Ultra Shield Fund and at the beginning of each outcome period.
Investment Methodology for the Funds
    Under Normal Market Conditions, each of the Funds will invest not
less than 80% of its assets in the FLEX Options that comprise their
respective Index. Each of the Funds may invest up to 20% of its net
assets (in the aggregate) in other investments that are not included in
the Fund's respective Index, but which the Adviser or Sub-Adviser
believes will help the Fund to track its Index and that will be
disclosed at the end of each trading day (``Other Assets''). Other
Assets include only cash or cash equivalents, as defined in Rule
14.11(i)(4)(C)(iii),\8\ and traditional U.S. exchange-traded options
contracts that reference either the S&P 500 or ETFs that track the S&P
500 (``Reference ETFs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As defined in Rule 14.11(i)(4)(C)(iii), cash equivalents
include short-term instruments with maturities of less than three
months, including: (i) U.S. Government securities, including bills,
notes, and bonds differing as to maturity and rates of interest,
which are either issued or guaranteed by the U.S. Treasury or by
U.S. Government agencies or instrumentalities; (ii) certificates of
deposit issued against funds deposited in a bank or savings and loan
association; (iii) bankers acceptances, which are short-term credit
instruments used to finance commercial transactions; (iv) repurchase
agreements and reverse repurchase agreements; (v) bank time
deposits, which are monies kept on deposit with banks or savings and
loan associations for a stated period of time at a fixed rate of
interest; (vi) commercial paper, which are short-term unsecured
promissory notes; and (vii) money market funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

S&P 500 FLEX Options
    The market for options contracts on the S&P 500 traded on CBOE,
including FLEX Options, is among the most liquid markets in the world
[sic] S&P 500 FLEX Options are a subset of S&P 500 options traded on
the CBOE.\9\ In 2016, 1,023,623 options contracts on the S&P 500 were
traded per day on CBOE, which is more than $200 billion in notional
volume traded on a daily basis.\10\ While, as described below, FLEX
Options are traded differently than traditional options contracts, the
Exchange believes that the liquidity and arbitrage opportunities of the
S&P 500 bolsters the market for FLEX Options, as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See https://www.theocc.com/webapps/flex-reports. Unless
otherwise noted, all statistics provided herein are based on
information from the Options Clearing Corporation.
    \10\ As of July 24, 2017, FLEX Options on the S&P 500 had open
interest of 349,596 contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FLEX Options on the S&P 500 are quoted by the same market makers
that trade traditional options contracts. Every FLEX Option order
submitted to CBOE is exposed to a competitive auction process for price
discovery. The process begins with a request for quote (``RFQ'') in
which the interested party establishes the terms of the FLEX Options
contract. The RFQ solicits interested market participants, including
on-floor market makers, remote market makers trading electronically,
and member firm traders, to respond to the RFQ with bids or offers
through a competitive process. This solicitation contains all of the
contract specifications-underlying, size, type of option, expiration
date, strike price, exercise style and settlement basis. During a
specified amount of time, responses to the RFQ are received and at the
end of that time period, the initiator can decide whether to accept the
best bid or offer. The process occurs under the rules of CBOE which
means that customer transactions are effected according to the
principles of a fair and orderly market following trading procedures
and policies developed by

CBOE. By way of example, during June and July 2017, the Sub-Adviser
traded 2,500 FLEX Option S&P 500 contracts with a notional exposure of
$626 million. The trades were executed at approximately .25% from the
mid-market mark, which is similar to the transaction costs of exchange
traded funds of similar size.
    The Exchange believes that sufficient protections are in place to
protect against market manipulation of the Funds' Shares and FLEX
Options on the S&P 500 for several reasons: (i) The liquidity in the
market for options on the S&P 500; (ii) the competitive quoting process
for FLEX Options; (iii) the diversity, liquidity, and market cap of the
securities underlying the S&P 500; and (iv) surveillance by the
Exchange, CBOE and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') designed to detect violations of the federal securities
laws and self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') rules; [sic].
    Trading in the Shares and the underlying investments will be
subject to the federal securities laws and Exchange, CBOE and FINRA
rules and surveillance programs.\11\ In this regard, the Exchange has
in place a surveillance program for transactions in ETFs to ensure the
availability of information necessary to detect and deter potential
manipulations and other trading abuses, thereby making the Shares less
readily susceptible to manipulation as assets in the portfolio--
comprised primarily of FLEX Options on the S&P 500--will be acquired in
extremely liquid and highly regulated markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange notes that CBOE is a member of the Option
Price Regulatory Surveillance Authority, which was established in
2006, to provide efficiencies in looking for insider trading and
serves as a central organization to facilitate collaboration in
insider trading and investigations for the U.S. options exchanges.
For more information, see http://www.cboe.com/aboutcboe/legal/departments/orsareg.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, options on the S&P 500 are among the most liquid
options in the world and derive their value from the actively traded
S&P 500 Index components. The contracts are cash-settled with no
delivery of stocks or ETFs, and trade in competitive auction markets
with price and quote transparency. The Exchange believes the highly
regulated options markets and the broad base and scope of the S&P 500
Index make securities that derive their value from the index less
susceptible to market manipulation in view of market capitalization and
liquidity of the S&P 500 components, price and quote transparency, and
arbitrage opportunities.
    The Exchange believes that the efficiency and liquidity of the
markets for S&P 500 securities, options on the S&P 500, including FLEX
Options, and other related derivatives are sufficiently great to deter
fraudulent or manipulative acts associated with the Funds' Shares
price. The Exchange also believes that such efficiency and liquidity
are sufficient to support the creation and redemption mechanism.
Coupled with the extensive surveillance programs of the SROs described
above, the Exchange does not believe that trading in the Fund's Shares
would present manipulation concerns.
    The Exchange represents that, except as described above, the Funds
will meet each of the initial and continued listing criteria in BZX
Rule 14.11(c) with the exception Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i), applicable to
the listing of Index Fund Shares based upon an index of ``U.S.
Component Stocks.'' The Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3
under the Act for the initial and continued listing of the Shares of
the Fund. In addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares of the
Funds will comply with all other requirements applicable to Index Fund
Shares including, but not limited to, requirements relating to the
dissemination of key information such as the Disclosed Portfolio, Net
Asset Value, and the Intraday Indicative Value, rules governing the
trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts,
surveillance, and the information circular, as set forth in Exchange
rules applicable to Index Fund Shares and the orders approving such
rules. Moreover, all of the options contracts held by the Funds will
trade on markets that are a member of Intermarket Surveillance Group
(``ISG'') or affiliated with a member of ISG or with which the Exchange
has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.\12\ All
statements and representations made in this filing regarding the index
composition, the description of the portfolio or reference assets,
limitations on portfolio holdings or reference assets, dissemination
and availability of index, reference asset, and intraday indicative
values, and the applicability of Exchange rules specified in this
filing shall constitute continued listing requirements for the Funds.
The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the
Exchange of any failure by the Fund or the Shares to comply with the
continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under
Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance
with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund or the Shares are
not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the
Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For a list of the current members and affiliate members of
ISG, see www.isgportal.com. The Exchange notes that not all
components of the Disclosed Portfolio for the Fund may trade on
markets that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in
place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \13\ in general and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \14\ in
particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest in that the Shares of each
Fund will meet each of the initial and continued listing criteria in
BZX Rule 14.11(c) with the exception Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i), applicable
to the listing of Index Fund Shares based upon an index of ``U.S.
Component Stocks.'' Specifically, Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i) sets forth the
requirements to be met by components of an index or portfolio of U.S.
Component Stocks. Because the Index consists of FLEX Options, rather
than ``U.S. Component Stocks'' as defined in Rule 14.11(c)(1)(D), the
Index does not satisfy the requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i).\15\
The Exchange

believes that the concerns that Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i) are intended to
address are mitigated by: (i) The liquidity in the market for options
on the S&P 500; \16\ (ii) the competitive quoting process for FLEX
Options; and (iii) the diversity, liquidity, and market cap of the
securities underlying the S&P 500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i)(e) provides that all securities in
the applicable index or portfolio shall be U.S. Component Stocks
listed on a national securities exchange and shall be NMS Stocks as
defined in Rule 600 under Regulation NMS of the Act. Each component
stock of the S&P 500 is a U.S. Component Stock that is listed on a
national securities exchange and is an NMS Stock. Options are
excluded from the definition of NMS Stock. The Funds and the Indexes
meet all of the requirements of the listing standards for Index Fund
Shares in Rule 14.11(c)(3), except the requirements in Rule
14.11(c)(3)(A)(i)(a)-(e), as the Index consists of options on U.S.
Component Stocks. The S&P 500 consists of U.S. Component Stocks and
satisfies the requirements of Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i)(a)-(e).
    \16\ In 2016, 1,023,623 options contracts on the S&P 500 were
traded per day on CBOE, which is more than $200 billion in notional
volume traded on a daily basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, trading in the Shares and the underlying Fund investments
will be subject to the federal securities laws and Exchange, CBOE and
FINRA rules and surveillance programs.\17\ In this regard, the Exchange
has in place a surveillance program for transactions in ETFs to ensure
the availability of information necessary to detect and deter potential
manipulations and other trading abuses, thereby making the Shares less
readily susceptible to manipulation as assets in the portfolio--
comprised primarily of FLEX Options on the S&P 500--will be acquired in
extremely liquid and highly regulated markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The Exchange notes that CBOE is a member of the Option
Price Regulatory Surveillance Authority, which was established in
2006, to provide efficiencies in looking for insider trading and
serves as a central organization to facilitate collaboration in
insider trading and investigations for the U.S. options exchanges.
For more information, see http://www.cboe.com/aboutcboe/legal/departments/orsareg.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, options on the S&P 500 are among the most liquid
options in the world and derive their value from the actively traded
S&P 500 Index components. The contracts are cash-settled with no
delivery of stocks or ETFs, and trade in competitive auction markets
with price and quote transparency. The Exchange believes the highly
regulated options markets and the broad base and scope of the S&P 500
Index make securities that derive their value from the index less
susceptible to market manipulation in view of market capitalization and
liquidity of the S&P 500 components, price and quote transparency, and
arbitrage opportunities.
    The Exchange believes that the efficiency and liquidity of the
markets for S&P 500 securities, options on the S&P 500, and other
related derivatives are sufficiently great to deter fraudulent or
manipulative acts associated with the Funds' Shares price. The Exchange
also believes that such efficiency and liquidity are sufficient to
support the creation and redemption mechanism. Coupled with the
extensive surveillance programs of the SROs described above, the
Exchange does not believe that trading in the Fund's Shares would
present manipulation concerns.
    The Exchange represents that, except as described above, the Funds
will satisfy, on an initial and continued listing basis, all of the
generic listing standards under BZX Rule 14.11(c)(3)(A)(i) and all
other applicable requirements for Index Fund Shares under Rule
14.11(c). The Trust is required to comply with Rule 10A-3 under the Act
for the initial and continued listing of the Shares of the Fund. In
addition, the Exchange represents that the Shares of the Funds will
comply with all other requirements applicable to Index Fund Shares
including, but not limited to, requirements relating to the
dissemination of key information such as the Disclosed Portfolio, Net
Asset Value, and the Intraday Indicative Value, rules governing the
trading of equity securities, trading hours, trading halts,
surveillance, and the information circular, as set forth in Exchange
rules applicable to Index Fund Shares and the orders approving such
rules. Moreover, all of the options contracts held by the Funds will
trade on markets that are a member of ISG or affiliated with a member
of ISG or with which the Exchange has in place a comprehensive
surveillance sharing agreement.\18\ All statements and representations
made in this filing regarding the index composition, the description of
the portfolio or reference assets, limitations on portfolio holdings or
reference assets, dissemination and availability of index, reference
asset, and intraday indicative values, and the applicability of
Exchange rules specified in this filing shall constitute continued
listing requirements for the Fund. The issuer has represented to the
Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund or
the Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements, and,
pursuant to its obligations under Section 19(g)(1) of the Act, the
Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing
requirements. If the Fund or the Shares are not in compliance with the
applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting
procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For a list of the current members and affiliate members of
ISG, see www.isgportal.com. The Exchange notes that not all
components of the Disclosed Portfolio for the Fund may trade on
markets that are members of ISG or with which the Exchange has in
place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act.

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 purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the
proposed rule change will facilitate the listing and trading of an
additional type of Index Fund Shares that will enhance competition
among market participants, to the benefit of investors and the
marketplace.

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Exchange 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-BatsBZX-2017-56 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-BatsBZX-2017-56. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the

Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BatsBZX-2017-56 and should
be submitted on or before September 26, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-18660 Filed 9-1-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                                   COMMENTS
                               Action / Response
                                    Page #

   Dr. Schlesinger's Comments on the Draft Report of the Definitive Study

                                       1
p.16. Assignment of Animals to Groups. It would be very helpful if the investigators included a Table here indicating the Group Number related to the 4 objectives and exposure protocols noted on pages 13-14.  It is not easy to follow this from the text
Agreed.  It is difficult to follow.  We will revise the text to make this easier to follow, with in-text table similar to the protocol.
16
                                       2
p. 18. Section 3.5. There appears to be a gap in group numbering per the description in text in that Groups 13 and 14 are not described here.
Groups 13 and 14 were removed from analysis.  We will revise the text to include truncated versions of Tables 1 and 2 from the protocol to clarify.
18
                                       3
p. 25. From Table 11, the spleen had same amount as did the kidney in this case but this is not noted in text.
Spleen has been added to the text
25
                                       4
p. 26. From Table 15, here again spleen and kidney are very similar yet this is not noted in text. Thus, there seems to be a pattern of high spleen levels in females.
Spleen has been added to the text.
26
                                       5
p. 26. It is noted here that is was suspected that samples were switched at collection but this could not be confirmed. Given that there is no definitive confirmation,  it is inappropriate to use these data at all and they should not be reported in the summary statistics.
While that could be a reasonable approach, it does not consider the manner in which the samples are collected and processed.  The samples are processed as they are collected, with each individual animal collected at intervals.  Because there are two trap samples collected and processed from one animal before the next animal samples are collected, the only logical explanation is that they were placed in the wrong vials for sampling, which are labeled, but differ in labelling by one number.   Rather than interfere with the mass balance and recovery, it is better to leave these in the statistics.
26
                                       6
P. 26. Adipose tissue is mentioned here related to results in Table 17 and 19, but it is not mentioned in relation to results shown in prior tables even though it is often high in those other groups as well.
Adipose is substantially higher than in other tissues in Tables 17 and 19.  It does not rise anywhere near these levels in other tables.
26
                                       7
P. 29. It is noted that there was "little" difference between males and females in peak DIPE levels. This should be tested with some statistical test rather than using the term little. The same suggestion goes for AUC for DIPE. Furthermore, there should be some statistical analysis for the last sentence, namely that the Cmax and AUC values were higher in males than females.
Because of the way the analysis was done for blood concentrations, and not all animals are sampled at the same time, it is not appropriate to analyze the PK data for individual animals which is what would be required for the evaluation of statistical significance.
29
                                       8
Figures 6  -  11. There needs to be some notation as to whether the error bars are standard deviation or standard error. In addition, the labels for the Y axis are unintelligible.
A notation of standard deviation has been added in the figure title.  The labels appear perfectly clear in our version.  The figure legend indicates that the Blood concentration is reported, and the y-axis scale indicates DIPE (ug/ml), acetone, or isopropanol.  No change to the figures.
74  -  79
                                       9
Section 13 in Appendix A outlines statistical testing that will be done, yet there is not indication in the body of the report that such testing was ever performed. There are no indications, as noted above, of the statistical significance of any differences noted. This needs to be addressed.
Agreed.  The statistical analysis of the PK values can not be conducted, because of the way that the data was collected from different animals through the course of the study.  A protocol deviation has been prepared.
A-26
                                      10
In [my] comments on the pilot study, it was noted, "Section 5.0. The investigators noted that comparison of DIPE levels in rats immediately after exposure with levels in rats after 7 days of collection of excreta indicated that there were no significant losses of radioactivity from the sample types during processing. However, looking at the data there seems to be about a 20% loss between input and output, and to this reviewer that percentage can be perhaps considered as significant." However, in the current draft final report, the investigators indicate that "As was observed in the pilot study, comparison of the exposure of rats....euthanized immediately following exposure with that of rats euthanized following 1 day of collection...yielded values that were very similar. This suggested that there were no significant losses of radioactivity....during processing..." Firstly, these two comments need to be reconciled. Secondly, since no statistical evaluation was done, what is meant by "no significant losses?"
The second reviewer raised this as a concern.  We have revised the analysis in the pilot study, and improved the recovery somewhat.  Statistical analyses outlined in the protocol were conducted and added to the report.
30

     Dr. Bond  -  Summary Comments on Draft Report of the Definitive Study

                                       1
General Comments  -  See attached pdf file.
We appreciate Dr. Bonds comments and suggestions

                                       2
Recommendation regarding pentane contamination of radiolabeled solution - See attached pdf file

This is a good comment, and we will add a description of the pentane contamination to the final report, and include a column in Table 4 showing the potential exposure to pentane.

                                       3
Recommendation regarding data presentation of metabolized dose - See attached pdf file
This is an interesting analysis, and could be added to the discussion.  However, for now we have not included it.

  Dr. Bond  -  Specific Comments on the Draft Report of the Definitive Study

                                       1
"This study evaluated the disposition of diisopropyl ether (DIPE) in male and Fischer 344 rats following nose only exposure and gavage administration, and pharmacokinetics following nose only exposure."

and female?
Added.
i
                                       2
"Based on the recovered radioactivity at 24 hr, the estimated dose for male rats was 80.3  2.4 mg/kg, and female rats was 77.5  1.5 mg/kg."

These amounts are less than the amount measured at the end of exposure suggesting that all radioactivity was not recovered.
The statement in the report is accurate.
i
                                       3
"Based on the recovered radioactivity at 24 hr, the estimated dose for male rats was 301.3  18 mg/kg, and female rats was 286  22 mg/kg."

Again, incomplete recovery.
The statement in the report is accurate.
ii
                                       4
"The estimated dose recovered was 786 +- 9 mg/kg for males, and 480 +- 39 mg/kg for females."

This amount seems high relative to the dose recovered for the single exposure, and compared with the relative amounts recovered for females.
The statement in the report is accurate.
ii
                                       5
"Based on the recovered radioactivity at 24 hr, the estimated dose for male rats was 543.9  11.2 mg/kg, and female rats was 401.8   59.2 mg/kg."

Why is there such a big difference between the dose recovered in males immediately after exposure (786mg/kg) and at 24 hr after exposure (543). On the surface this appears to be an anomaly, however, an alternate method for analyzing the data suggests that this difference is not unexpected.  See comments in review of overall report (another file).
The statement in the report is accurate.
ii
                                       6
"A lesser amount was recovered (<1%) in feces, and approximately 5 % in the tissues and carcass at 1 day."

Recovery also about 80% for this gavage dose.
The statement in the report is accurate.
ii
                                       7
"A lesser amount was recovered (<1%) in feces, and approximately 3 % in the tissues and carcass at 1 day."

Lower recovery (about 70%) at this higher gavage dose suggesting that not all volatiles were collected.
The statement in the report is accurate.
ii
                                       8
"Male and female Fischer 344 Rats were used for the inhalation exposures to [2-[14]C]DIPE (Table 1), gavage administration of [2-[14]C]DIPE (Table 2), and inhalation exposure to unlabeled DIPE (Table 3).  Body weights and the number of animals"

This sentence needs to be completed.
The sentence has been deleted.
24
                                       9
"A larger amount (11.8-23.7 uCi) of radioactivity was retained following repeat exposure to 3600 ppm DIPE.  For the last radiolabeled exposure, the retained dose was higher in males than the single exposure, "

What is the mg/kg for these groups?
The dose in mg/kg has been added.
24
                                      10
"The estimated doses based on the total activity recovered at between the single exposure and 24 hr following the exposure were 80.3  2.4 (male, 600 ppm), 77.5  1.5 (female, 600 ppm), 301.1  18.4 (male, 3600 ppm), and 286.5  22.1 mg/kg (Table 7).  Following repeated exposures to 3600 ppm, followed by a single exposure to [2-[14]C]DIPE, the estimated doses based on recovered radioactivity were 543.9  11.2 (male) and  401.8  59.2 (female)  mg/kg."

Female, 3600 ppm?
Added to the text.
25
                                      11
"Table 4.  Specific Activity of Dose Formulations"

As indicated in written comments it would be useful to add the percent pentane contamination to this table.
Have added an extra column to Table 4.

                                      12
  Time         Conc.      Pred.    Residual      AUC       AUMC      Weight
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
83.29      397.0
      8.000 *      5.095      4.845     0.2497      87.78      431.1      1.000
      10.00 *      1.625      1.737    -0.1126      94.50      488.1      1.000
      16.00 *    0.08148    0.08013   0.001354      99.62      540.7      1.000
*) Starred values were included in the estimation of Lambda_z.

Why were only the last 3 data points used?
We fit the data automatically to a noncompartmental model, and let the computer fit the data.  It provides a best fit for the model, and selects the number of points that give the best fit.  It relieves the operator of questions of bias.
F-15
                                      13
      6.500 *      51.28      55.39     -4.114      168.3      766.9      1.000
      7.000 *      43.17      42.41     0.7646      191.9      925.8      1.000
      7.330 *      38.68      35.55      3.130      205.4      1022.      1.000
      8.000 *      27.18      24.85      2.326      227.5      1190.      1.000
      10.00 *      7.378      8.536     -1.158      262.0      1481.      1.000
      16.00 *     0.3569     0.3459    0.01099      285.2      1720.      1.000
*) Starred values were included in the estimation of Lambda_z.

Here more than 3 data points were used.
Same explanation as above. We fit the data automatically to a noncompartmental model, and let the computer fit the data.  It provides a best fit for the model, and selects the number of points that give the best fit.  It relieves the operator of questions of bias.
F-18

Dr. Bond's Comments on Test Chemical Analysis Report [2-14C]-Diisopropyl Ether

                                       1
["][1]H NMR spectra were acquired on [14]C DIPE prepared by adding 3 uL of [2-[14]C] DIPE (13426-4A) to 0.5 mL of CDCl3 on April 18, 2012 (exposure groups 5 and 6).  Spectra were acquired at 500 MHz with a sweep width of 5704.9 Hz, a pulse width of 11.3 usec."

What does this lot number refer to?  Is this material diluted with unlabeled DIPE? Or is it neat material from the supplier?
This refers to a notebook (13426) and a page (4) and a sequential letter (A) used to reference materials that are used by an operator, so we can distinguish individual items by a unique reference, rather than the aliquot of DIPE prepared on a specific date.  This reference takes us directly to the notebook.
4
                                       2
Following the exposure to the Groups 3 and 4, a sample of the remaining mixture used for the exposure was prepared for analysis (Figure 89).
Corrected.
4
                                       3
"Our analysis of initial radiochemical purity indicated 97.3%."

Radiochemical purity indicates that the 14C is associated with DIPE.
Is there a change requested?
5
                                       4
"However, analysis by NMR spectroscopy indicated that the material contained approximately 50% pentane."

NMR indicates that the solution containing 14C-DIPE is about 50% pentane and 50% 14-C DIPE.
Again - is there a change requested?
5
                                       5
"Calculation of the degree of contamination resulting from the mass of pentane in the DIPE preparations was conducted prior to proceeding with studies using the [14]C DIPE."

This is key to the integrity of the studies and should be presented in the main body of the final report and not restricted to an Appendix.
We added text to the main body of the report.
5
                                       6
"The dilution of the labeled DIPE with unlabeled DIPE results in a substantial dilution of the contaminants, with the resulting pentane amounting to approximately 0.5 % of the total DIPE/14C DIPE mixture used for the inhalation exposures conducted to date 3600 ppm DIPE.  We have verified that this is barely detectable by NMR spectroscopy as a contaminant in the final preparation used for the 3600 ppm exposure.  With our estimate of 0.5% of the material as pentane, the corresponding concentration of pentane during the 3600 ppm DIPE exposure would be approximately 25 ppm.  The OSHA PEL for pentane is 1000 ppm."

[3600 ppm DIPE] It appears that the specific activity of the administered material (ratio of unlabeled DIPE to 14-C DIPE) is key to determining the percentage of contamination of the dosing solution by pentane. A table showing how the percentage of the pentane contamination changes as the test material is diluted with DIPE would be useful. This information is important for all of the studies -- inhalation at 600 and 3600 ppm and the gavage studies.

[exposure] This exposure would have the most dilution by pure unlabled DIPE.  What about the 600 ppm exposure and the gavage exposures.  What is the percent of contamination of pentane in these studies?
The amount of pentane in each of the dose groups has been added to Table 4.  The percentages are similar for the inhalation groups.  The gavage formulation had a higher percentage of pentane compared to DIPE, but with dilution by the vehicle ingredients (Cremophor and water), it was reduced substantially.
5

Dr. Bond's comments on the Analysis of Oral Dose Formulations Diisopropyl Ether

                                       1
"From the calibration curve, the regression equation was used to calculate the concentration of DIPE in diluted samples and in samples."

Is something missing here?
Nothing missing.
4 of 18

      Quality Assurance Comments on Draft Report of the Definitive Study

                                       1
Radioactivity was eliminated primarily as exhaled volatiles (42 and 41 % of the recovered radioactivity, in males and females, respectively), and [14]CO2 (389  and 41%)
Changed
i
                                       2
In Groups 5 and 6, eight male and female Fischer 344 rats were exposed to 4 consecutive days of unlabeled DIPE at 3600 ppm,for 6 hr/day (actual concentration 3555 +- 55 ppm).
Changed
ii
                                       3
At 1 day following the end of the last exsposure, the rats were euthanized and the radioactivity remaining in the tissues and carcass was determined by digestion and scintillation counting.  Radioactivity was eliminated primarily as exhaled volatiles (45 and 53 % of the recovered radioactivity in males and females, respectively), and [14]CO2 (34 and 26 %). Small amounts of radioactivity were recovered in urine (8.5 and 6.87 % of the recovered radioactivity).
Changed
ii
                                       4
Small amounts of radioactivity were recovered in urine (28.5 and 2.2 % of the administered dose).
Changed
ii
                                       5
Acetone levels in both male and female rats rose steadily during the exposure, and reaching a plateau following exposure until 8 hr following the initiation of exposure and then declined rapidly reaching preexposure levels by 16 hrs.

Indicates 7 hr in the results section
Changed
iii
                                       6
Quality Assurance Statement - Needs to be completed.
Yes
iv
                                       7
There were no significant deviations (Appendix A) that would affect the integrity or quality of the study or the interpretation of the results.  Specimens, raw data, copies of the inhalation data, and the final report generated as a result of this study are archived at RTI International, until they are no longer needed for compliance (?).
Changed.  Deleted specimens, since we have indicated in the protocol that the DIPE will not be retained, and the specimens are not expected to afford reanalysis.
v
                                       8
Three (?) unexposed rats (x ? male and X ? female) were housed in individual glass metabolism chambers for 1 day for collection of urine and feces for determination of radioactivity background.
2 male and 1 female.  Added
16
                                       9
The concentration of DIPE was monitored at the inlet to the tower, and at the outlet as described in the Inhalation Summary Report: Nose Only Exposures at RTI International ( Appendix EXX).
Changed
17
                                      10
The generation, exposure and monitoring systems are described in the `Inhalation Summary Report: Nose Only Exposures at RTI International'  Appendix EXX.

Changed
18
                                      11
Table 7 and Table 8, and ranged from approximately 3.7 to 15.8 10.1uCi.
Changed
25
                                      12
Radioactivity was eliminated primarily as exhaled volatiles (Table 8 and Table 10) (42 and 41 % of the recovered radioactivity, in males and females, respectively), and [14]CO2 (389 and 41%) .
Correct as written  -  adding both the trap 1 and trap 2 means.

25
                                      13
Small amounts of radioactivity were recovered in urine (8.5 and 6.87 % of the recovered radioactivity).
Changed.
26
                                      14
As with the other? 3600 ppm exposure, highest concentrations were observed in liver, kidney, small intestine and lung.
Changed to single 3600 ppm exposure.
26
                                      15
Small amounts of radioactivity were recovered in urine (82.5 and 2.2 % of the administered dose).
Changed
27
                                      16
Additional tissues with similar levels were stomach, large intestine, spleen, and skin.
Changed
27
                                      17
The details of the inhalation exposure system are described in the report for the pilot study, (RTI-934, Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics of Diisopropyl Ether in Male and Female Rats: Pilot Study Appendix E, Inhalation Summary Report for Setup and Evaluation of Inhalation System at RTI International) and the details of the actual exposure are reported in Appendix EF, Inhalation Summary Report: Nose-Only Exposures at RTI International.
Changed

28
                                      18
On exposure of rats to 3600 ppm DIPE, similar results were obtained.  DIPE accumulated rapidly during the 6 hours of exposure, and rapidly declined after the exposure (Table 31 and Error! Reference source not found.).
Corrected to Figure 9.
29
                                      19
The peak concentrations of acetone achieved in male rats were approximately 50% higher than those in female rats.   Male rats reached preexposure levels by 24 hours.  Might be helpful to indicate that these were extrapolated values, not mentioned anywhere but in summary.
Added to the text.
29
                                      20
In these studies, approximately 12-13 11-12% of the radioactivity recovered was in the carcass and tissues in the male and female rats exposed to 600 ppm, and approximately 8 and 76 % of the radioactivity was recovered in the male and female rats, respectively, exposed to 3600 ppm.  With repeated exposures to 3600 ppm DIPE, approximately 110 and 121% of the recovered radioactivity was found in the tissues and carcass in male and female rats respectively.
Changed
30
                                      21
Quality Assurance Reviewer:  Add RTI Name

Deleted
32
                                      22
Table 2.  Body Weights[a] and Dose Administered to Male and Female Fischer 344 Rats in Oral Gavage Groups
Added footnote
34
                                      23
Table 10.  Add footnote from table 8

Added
44
                                      24
Table 16. Difference between 0 and 0.00*?
There are no instances of 0 in the table.  All values are reported to two decimal places and three sig figs.  *0.00 would represent a value that is below 0.005, and is less than 3x background.
50
                                      25
Table 20.  Percent of Administered Dose Recovered in Excreta and Tissues 24 h Following Gavage Administration of [[14]C]DIPE (50 mg/kg) to Male F344 Rats  (Group 7)
Added
54
                                      26
Table 22.  Percent of Administered Dose in Excreta and Tissues 24 h Following Gavage Administration of [[14]C]DIPE (50 mg/kg) to Female F344 Rats  (Group 8)
Added
56
                                      27
Table 24.  Percent of Radioactivity Recovered in Excreta and Tissues 24 h Following Gavage Administration of [[14]C]DIPE (200 mg/kg) to Male F344 Rats  (Group 9)
Added
58
                                      28
Table 26.  Percent of Radioactivity Recovered in Excreta and Tissues 24 h Following Oral Gavage Administration of [2-[14]C]DIPE (200 mg/kg) to Female F344 Rats (Group 10)
Added
60
                                      29
Table 33.  Extrapolated values?
A footnote has been added.
67
                                      30
Figure 11.  Blood Concentrations of Acetone in Male and Female Rats Exposed to 3600 ppm DIPE for 6 hr.
Male rat values here are not correct.  Values reported are well over 200 ug/ml

Correct.  This had been changed to the correct graph.
79

Quality Assurance Comments on the Analysis of Oral Dose Formulations Diisopropyl Ether

                                       1
Aliquots of each 100 ul dilution 100 ul were transferred into a 10-mL headspace vial, capped with a crimp seal cap, and .10 l of ISTD working solution was added through the septum using 10 l syringe.
Changed to Aliquots of each dilution (100 ul), made the second change
3 of 18
                                       2
Calibration curves were generated in Tablecurve.
Corrected
4 of 18

         211b Research Group Comments on Draft Definitive Study Report

                                       1
In Groups 1 and 2, [and 3 and 4] eight male and eight female Fischer 344 rats were exposed to [2-[14]C] DIPE in a nose-only inhalation system at a target concentration of 600 ppm for 6 hours (actual concentration 605  12 ppm).
Corrected
i
                                       2
Non-compartmental pharmacokinetic analysis of DIPE indicted a terminal half life of approximately 1 hr at both exposure concentrations in male and female rats.
I think that this is debatable as to whether this is a terminal half life.  It is the half life observed in this study.
iii
                                       3
Oral administration of DIPE indicated extensive elimination of radioactivity by exhalation as CO2 and volatiles.
Changed
iii
                                       4
The Environmental Protection Agency under the Fuel and Fuel Additives health effects testing program regulations codified at 40 CFR part 79,58(c) has indicated the need for data on the toxicity of oxygenated fuel additives, including diisopropyl ether (DIPE).   A component of the data required to evaluate the potential health risk(s) of DIPE is the investigation of the uptake, pharmacokinetics and metabolism of DIPE following inhalation (the expected primary routes of exposure) and oral dosing in rats.  Investigation of the kinetics of DIPE following single and repeated inhalation exposure will provide an assessment of the effects of exposure on the capability of DIPE to alter the capacity for its own metabolism by enzyme induction or inhibition.

This opening paragraph needs to be more precise, particularly since as written there is no mention of oral studies which suddenly appear in 2.0.

Happy to change it.  Added oral studies
13
                                       5
Animals in Groups 1/2 and 3/4, were assigned Study IDs in order of eartag numbers from lowest to highest after animals that did not acclimate well to the nose only tubes prestudy were eliminated.

Is this part of the lab's SOP? It could be a potential source of bias in subject selection, e.g. more agitated rats could be those with a higher metabolic rate. If it is SOP then disregard comment.
It is not an SOP  -  we had to do this to ensure IACUC approval for this study.
16
                                       6
3.5.3	Single Exposures  -  Metabolism and Distribution
Eight male (Group 1) and eight female (Group 2) F344 rats  were exposed for approximately 6 hr to a target concentration of 600 ppm [14]C DIPE/DIPE via nose only inhalation.  Eight male (Group 3) and eight female (Group 4) F344 rats  were exposed for approximately 6 hr to 3600 ppm.
3.5.5	Repeat Exposures  -  Metabolism and Distribution
Eleven male (Group 5) and eleven female (Group 6) F344 rats  were exposed for approximately 6 hr/day to 3600 ppm unlabeled DIPE via nose only inhalation for 4 days.  On the fifth day, eight rats per sex were exposed for approximately 6 hr to 3600 ppm [14]C DIPE/DIPE.
3.6  	Oral Gavage Administration
Male (Group 7, N=4) and female (Group 8, N=4) rats were administered a single dose of [2-[14]C]DIPE/DIPE by gavage at 50 mg/kg.  Male (Group 9, N=4) and female (Group 10, N=4) rats  were administered a single dose of [2-[14]C]DIPE/DIPE by gavage at 200 mg/kg.

Changed

Changed

Changed
18
                                       7
Carcasses from Groups 11, 12, 15 and 16 were not analyzed
Changed
21

                                       8
Calculated doses (mg/kg) ranged from 96.8 mg/kg in females and 100 mg/kg in males at 600 ppm.

Averaged? These are not ranges. If means shouldn't they be +- SD?
These are means  -  changed the sentence
24
                                       9
The concentration of radioactivity in tissues at 24 hr are presented in Table 13 and Table 15.  As with the 600 ppm exposure, highest concentrations were observed in liver, kidney, small intestine and lung.

The values in these tables are calculated concentrations of DIPE not amount of radioactivity.
Actually this is not the case.  The concentrations are calculated in DIPE equivalents and are radioactivity.  We don't know what the radioactivity is unless we separate it. So it is incorrect to refer to it as DIPE, but as DIPE equivalents.  We can change this to Concentration of Radioactivity (DIPE equivalents ug/g)
26
                                      10
For the purpose of reporting summary statistics, the value recorded for trap 2 has been switched with that recorded for trap 1.

Verify that this is noted in protocol deviations.
Deleted this wording and reported the data as is.  No deviation.
26
                                      11
The concentrations of radioactivity in tissues at 24 hr are presented in Table 17 and Table 19.

Again, values are estimated DIPE concentrations.
See response to 9 above.
26


[Federal Register: December 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 234)]
[Notices]
[Page 72806-72807]
[DOCID:fr07de05-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-26-000]

Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP; Notice of Application

November 28, 2005.
    Take notice that on November 16, 2005, Dominion Cove Point LNG, LP
(Cove Point LNG) filed an application in Docket No. CP06-26-000,
pursuant to section 3 of the Natural Gas Act, for authority to
construct, install, own, operate and maintain certain facilities at the
Cove Point LNG import terminal at Cove Point, Maryland (Air Separation
Unit Project). The details of this proposal are more fully set forth in
the application that is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Anne
E. Bomar, Managing Director, Transmission, Rates and Regulation,
Dominion Resources, Inc., 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia
23219, or by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Cove Point LNG says that the Air Separation Unit Project is
designed to add two air separation units, a liquid nitrogen storage
tank, an electric generation unit, and appurtenant facilities at the
Cove Point LNG import terminal. This project will increase Cove Point
LNG's ability to inject nitrogen into the vaporized liquefied natural
gas as necessary to meet the tariff requirements for gas quality
contained in the Cove Point LNG's tariff. Cove Point LNG requests that
the Commission grant the requested authorization at the earliest
practicable date, in order to ensure an in-service date of January
2008.
    Cove Point LNG says that the facilities proposed in the Cove Point
Air Separation Unit Project will also enhance the reliability of
service at the terminal and provide the Rate Schedule LTD-1 customers
with more flexibility to acquire and schedule cargoes of LNG from a
wider variety of supply sources. Cove Point LNG says that the Air
Separation Unit Project also will not result in any change to the gas
quality specifications contained in Cove Point's tariff, including the
BTU level and nitrogen content specified in those provisions.
    Cove Point LNG says that it intends to make a subsequent, limited
Natural Gas Act Section 4 filing to adjust the currently effective LTD-
1 settlement rates to reflect the costs of the Air Separation Unit
Project. Further, Cove Point LNG does not seek Commission approval of
the Air Separation Unit Project rates in the instant proceeding;
however, it requests that the Commission find in this proceeding that:
(1) The proposed facilities are prudently designed and appropriately
sized to provide the requested nitrogen injection capacity; (2) the
costs of the proposed facilities, about $ 63 million, are reasonable;
and (3) the proposed rate treatment for the costs of the Air Separation
Unit Project as shown on Exhibit Z is reasonable. Cove Point LNG is
proposing an Air Separation Unit Project surcharge in the LTD rate
schedules with a reservation charge of $ 1.5990 per Dth in the LTD-1
Rate Schedule and a maximum commodity charge of $ 0.0526 per Dth in the
LTD-2 Rate Schedule.
    On October 7, 2005, the Commission issued new rules which generally
require that projects involving liquefied natural gas terminals follow
mandatory procedures requiring prospective applicants to begin the
Commission's pre-filing review process at least six months prior to
filing an application for any siting or construction authorizations.
(See Order No. 665, new rules at 18 CFR 157.21) However, based on an
October 25, 2005 request by Cove Point LNG under section 157.21(e)(2)
of the new rules, the Director of the Commission's Office of Energy
Projects made a finding and determination on November 14, 2005, that
the pre-filing review process would not apply to Cove Point LNG's Air
Separation Unit Project.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to
intervene in accordance with the

requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act
(18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the
service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will
receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project, or in support of or in opposition to this project, should
submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of
the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the
Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the
environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated
with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental
commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on
all other parties. The Commission's rules require that persons filing
comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests
only to the applicant. However, the non-party commenters will not
receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the
Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by
the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the
Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    Comment Date: December 16, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6927 Filed 12-6-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 84686-84688]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-
2002-11426; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2003-16241;
FMCSA-2005-21711; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2007-29019;
FMCSA-2009-0121; FMCSA-2009-0154; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2011-0092;
FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0275; FMCSA-2011-0276; FMCSA-2011-26690;
FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2013-0166; FMCSA-2013-0169]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA confirms its decision to renew exemptions for 99
individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision
requirement in one eye.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were 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 8:30 a.m. to 5 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 November 2, 2015, FMCSA published a notice announcing its
decision to renew exemptions for 99 individuals from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) to operate a CMV in interstate
commerce and requested comments from the public (80 FR 67481). The
public comment period ended on December 2, 2015, 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)(10).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to driver 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 no comments in this preceding.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 99 renewal exemption applications
and comments received, FMCSA confirms its' decision to exempt the
following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41 (b)(10),
subject to the requirements cited above:
    As of December 5, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 17 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (66 FR
17743; 66 FR 33990; 68 FR 10301; 68 FR 19596; 68 FR 35772; 68 FR 52811;
68 FR 61860; 70 FR 25878; 70 FR 33937; 70 FR 61165; 72 FR 32705; 72 FR
46261; 72 FR 54972; 72 FR 58359; 72 FR 58362; 72 FR 67344; 74 FR 26461;
74 FR 26464; 74 FR 34630; 74 FR 43217; 74 FR 53581; 74 FR 57551; 74 FR
57553; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR 34135; 76 FR 37168; 76 FR 37885; 76 FR 54530;
76 FR 64169; 76 FR 64171; 76 FR 66123; 76 FR 70212; 76 FR 75943; 78 FR
12815; 78 FR 22602; 78 FR 62935; 78 FR 65032; 78 FR 68137; 78 FR 76395;
78 FR 77782; 78 FR 78477; 80 FR 67481):

Daniel F. Albers (CA)
Keith Bell (FL)
Kevin G. Clem (SD)
David N. Cleveland (ME)
David J. Comeaux (LA)
Tommy R. Crouse (LA)
Albion C. Doe, Sr. (NH)
Mark D. Kraft (IL)
Rocky J. Lachney (LA)
Chase L. Larson (WA)
Herman G. Lovell (OR)
Danny C. Pope (IL)
James B. Prunty (WV)
Rick E. Smith (IL)
Robert E. Smith (CT)
Fred L. Stotts (OK)
Randell K. Tyler (AL)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
Nos. FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-2003-15892; FMCSA-2007-
27897; FMCSA-2007-29019; FMCSA-2009-0121; FMCSA-2009-0206; FMCSA-2011-
0092; FMCSA-2011-26690; FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2013-0166. Their
exemptions are effective as of December 5, 2015 and will expire on
December 5, 2017.
    As of December 6, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 7 individuals have

satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the
vision requirements (70 FR 57353; 70 FR 72689; 72 FR 62897; 74 FR
43217; 74 FR 57551; 74 FR 60021; 76 FR 70210; 78 FR 66099; 80 FR
67481):

John E. Bell (AZ)
Henry L. Chastain (GA)
Thomas R. Crocker (SC)
Thomas C. Meadows (NC)
David A. Morris (TX)
Richard P. Stanley (MA)
Scott A. Tetter (IL)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2009-0206. Their exemptions are effective
as of December 6, 2015, and will expire on December 6, 2017.
    As of December 13, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following individual, Bernard T. Gillette (PA), has
satisfied the conditions for obtaining a renewed exemption from the
vision requirements (78 FR 62935; 78 FR 76395; 80 FR 67481).
    This driver was included in the following docket: Docket No. FMCSA-
2013-0166. The exemption is effective as of December 13, 2015, and will
expire on December 13, 2017.
    As of December 17, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR
62935; 78 FR 76395; 80 FR 67481):

Herbert R. Benner (ME)
Steven M. Hoover (IL)
Lewis J. Johnson (PA)
Michael E. Miles (IL)
Carlos A. Osollo (NM)
Henry D. Smith (NC)
Kolby W. Strickland (WA)
Cesar Villa (NM)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-2013-0166. Their exemptions are effective as of December 17,
2015, and will expire on December 17, 2017.
    As of December 22, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 5 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (72 FR
58362; 72 FR 67344; 74 FR 57553; 76 FR 49528; 76 FR 61143; 76 FR 64164;
76 FR 67248; 76 FR 70212; 76 FR 75940; 76 FR 79761; 78 FR 67460; 80 FR
67481):

Frank E. Johnson, Jr. (FL)
Todd A. McBrain (OK)
Robert E. Morgan, Jr. (GA)
David M. Taylor (MO)
James D. Zimmer (OH)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-2007-29019; FMCSA-2011-0142; FMCSA-2011-0275; FMCSA-2011-
0276. Their exemptions are effective as of December 22, 2015, and will
expire on December 22, 2017.
    As of December 24, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 38 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR
64274; 78 FR 77778; 80 FR 67481):

Lawrence A. Angle (MO)
Ernest J. Bachman (PA)
Wayne Barker (OK)
Eugene R. Briggs (MI)
Matthew S. Burns (OH)
Ryan J. Burnworth (MO)
Michael D. Champion (VT)
Kevin J. Cobb (PA)
Lee A. DeHaan (SD)
Bradley R. Dishman (KY)
Matthew Eck (PA)
Christopher T. Faber (FL)
Gregory K. Frazier (GA)
John E. Gannon, Jr. (NV)
Thomas G. Gholston (MS)
David B. Jones (FL)
Thomas L. Kitchen (VA)
David G. Lamborn (ND)
Luther D. Long (GA)
George Malivuk (WI)
Stephen R. Marshall (MS)
Edgar H. Meraz (NM)
Chad A. Miller (IA)
William L. Paschall (MD)
Kerry R. Powers (IN)
Glennis R. Reynolds (KY)
Noel S. Robbins (PA)
Joseph Saladino (FL)
Raymond C. Schultz (OH)
Eugene D. Self, Jr.
James A. Shepard (NY)
Darren B. Shields (NV)
Roye T. Skelton (MS)
Mark P. Thiboutot (NH)
Robert Thomas (PA)
Herman D. Truewell (FL)
Donald L. Urmston (OH)
Janusz K. Wis (IL)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-2013-0169. Their exemptions are effective as of December 24,
2015 and will expire on December 24, 2017.
    As of December 27, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 17 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (64 FR
27027; 64 FR 51568; 66 FR 53826; 66 FR 63289; 66 FR 66966; 67 FR 10471;
67 FR 19798; 68 FR 64944; 68 FR 69434; 69 FR 19611; 70 FR 48797; 70 FR
53412; 70 FR 57353; 70 FR 61493; 70 FR 67776; 70 FR 72689; 70 FR 74102;
72 FR 39879; 72 FR 52422; 74 FR 37295; 74 FR 48343; 74 FR 49069; 74 FR
60021; 76 FR 75942; 78 FR 67452; 80 FR 67481):

Anthony Brandano (MA)
Stanley E. Elliott (UT)
Elmer E. Gockley (PA)
Danny R. Gray (OK)
Glenn T. Hehner (KY)
Vladmir M. Kats (NC)
Alfred Keehn (AZ)
Randall B. Laminack (TX)
Robert W. Lantis (MT)
Jerry J. Lord (PA)
Ronald S. Mallory (OK)
Eldon Miles (IN)
Neal A. Richard (LA)
Rene R. Trachsel (OR)
Stanley W. Tyler, Jr. (NC)
Kendle F. Waggle, Jr. (IN)
DeWayne Washington (NC)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-1999-5578; FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2002-11426; FMCSA-2005-
21711; FMCSA-2005-22194; FMCSA-2007-27897; FMCSA-2009-0154. Their
exemptions are effective as of December 27, 2015, and will expire on
December 27, 2017.
    As of December 31, 2015, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 6 individuals have satisfied the conditions
for obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (66 FR
53826; 66 FR 66966; 68 FR 61857; 68 FR 69434; 68 FR 75715; 70 FR 74102;
71 FR 646; 72 FR 71993; 72 FR 71998; 74 FR 65846; 76 FR 78729; 78 FR
67454; 78 FR 67462; 79 FR 4803; 80 FR 67481):

Martiniano L. Espinosa (FL)
Dustin K. Heimbach (PA)
James G. LaBair (MI)
Lonnie Lomax, Jr. (IL)
Eugene C. Murphy (FL)
John H. Voigts (AZ)

    The drivers were included in one of the following dockets: Docket
No. FMCSA-2001-10578; FMCSA-2003-16241. Their exemptions are effective
as of December 31, 2015, and will expire on December 31, 2017.
    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: November 16, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-28228 Filed 11-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P