[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14155-14160]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05854]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77339; File No. SR-BX-2016-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding Fees and
Rebates To Adopt the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule

March 10, 2016.
    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 March 1, 2016, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'') \3\ filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Exchange notes that it has legally changed its name to
NASDAQ BX, Inc. with the state of Delaware and filed Form 1
reflecting the change, and is in the process of changing its rules
to reflect the new name.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Options Pricing at Chapter XV
Section 2, entitled ``BX Options Market--Fees and Rebates,'' which
governs pricing for BX members using the BX Options Market (``BX
Options''). The Exchange proposes to modify certain fees and rebates
(per executed contract) to adopt the Select Symbol Options Tier
Schedule for certain Penny Pilot \4\ Options (each a ``Select Symbol''
and together the ``Select Symbols'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Penny Pilot was established in June 2012 and extended in
2015. See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 67256 (June 26,
2012), 77 FR 39277 (July 2, 2012) (SR-BX-2012-030) (order approving
BX option rules and establishing Penny Pilot); and 75326 (June 29,
2015), 80 FR 38481 (July 6, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-037) (notice of filing
and immediate effectiveness extending the Penny Pilot through June
30, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Chapter XV, Section 2, to modify
certain fees and rebates \5\ to adopt the Select Symbol Options Tier
Schedule for certain Penny Pilot Options. The proposed Select Symbol
Options Tier Schedule would apply to Customers,\6\ BX Options Market
Makers,\7\ Non-Customers,\8\ and Firms.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Fees and rebates are per executed contract. BX Chapter XV,
Section 2(1).
    \6\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for
the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Chapter I, Section
1(a)(48)). BX Chapter XV.
    \7\ BX Options Market Makers may also be referred to as ``Market
Makers''. The term ``BX Options Market Maker'' or (``M'') means a
Participant that has registered as a Market Maker on BX Options
pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 2, and must also remain in good
standing pursuant to Chapter VII, Section 4. In order to receive
Market Maker pricing in all securities, the Participant must be
registered as a BX Options Market Maker in at least one security. BX
Chapter XV.
    \8\ Note 1 to Chapter XV, Section 2, states: ``\1\ A Non-
Customer includes a Professional, Broker-Dealer and Non-BX Options
Market Maker.''
    \9\ The term ``Firm'' or (``F'') applies to any transaction that
is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Firm range at
OCC. BX Chapter XV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Chapter XV, Section 2, subsection (1), contains a SPY
\10\ Options Tier Schedule (``SPY Schedule'') that has four tiers. The
Exchange proposes to convert the SPY Schedule into the Select Symbols
Options Tier Schedule, as discussed in detail below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``SPY'' or Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/SPDRs
options are Penny Pilot Options that are based on the SPDR exchange-
traded fund (``ETF''), which is designed to track the performance of
the S&P 500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Change 1--Penny Pilot Options: Modify Fees and Rebates To Add the
Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule
    In Change 1, the Exchange proposes modifications to convert its
current SPY Schedule to the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule. The
proposed change keeps the great majority of the current SPY Schedule
fees and rebates assessments (twelve out of sixteen) and tiers (three
out of four) exactly the same in the new Select Symbols Options Tier
Schedule; and updates the fees and rebates schedule to indicate
``Select Symbols'' rather than ``SPY.''
    Specifically, the Exchange proposes, commensurate with renaming the
SPY Options Tier Schedule the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule, to
set forth the BX Options Select Symbol List. The Select Symbols \11\ on
this list represent, similarly to SPY, some of the highest volume Penny
Pilot Options traded on the Exchange and in the U.S. The proposed
Select Symbols are similar to those of other options exchanges (e.g.,
the MIAX Options Exchange (``MIAX'').\12\ Like the SPY

Options Tier Schedule, the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule will
have four tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The following are Select Symbols: ASHR, DIA, DXJ, EEM, EFA,
EWJ, EWT, EWW, EWY, EWZ, FAS, FAZ, FXE, FXI, FXP, GDX, GLD, HYG,
IWM, IYR, KRE, OIH, QID, QLD, QQQ, RSX, SDS, SKF, SLV, SPY, SRS,
SSO, TBT, TLT, TNA, TZA, UNG, URE, USO, UUP, UVXY, UYG, VXX, XHB,
XLB, XLE, XLF, XLI, XLK, XLP, XLU, XLV, XLY, XME, XOP, XRT.
    \12\ See MIAX fee schedule at http://www.miaxoptions.com/sites/default/files/fee-schedules/MIAX_Options_Fee_Schedule_10012015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Tier 1 in the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule, which
has the same requirements as the current Tier I in the SPY Options Tier
Schedule will be where a BX Participant (``Participant'') executes less
than 0.05% of total industry customer equity and exchange traded fund
(``ETF'') option average daily volume (``ADV'') contracts per month.
Proposed Tier 1 will range from a $0.00 rebate to a $0.44 fee:

--The Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer,
BX Options Market Maker, or Firm will be $0.00 (no rebate will be
paid); \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This is the same as the rebate in the current SPY Options
Tier Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the Fee to Add Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with
Customer will be $0.44; \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Proposed $0.44 is a modest fee increase from the current
SPY Options Tier Schedule, which is $0.42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer, BX Options Market Maker, Customer, or Firm will be $0.00;
\15\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This is the same as the rebate in the current SPY Options
Tier Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading with
Customer will be $0.42.\16\

    \16\ This is the same as the fee in the current SPY Options Tier
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Tier 2 in the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule, which
has the same requirements as current Tier 2 in the SPY Options Tier
Schedule, will be where Participant executes 0.05% to less than 0.15%
of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per
month. Proposed Tier 2 will range from a $0.25 rebate to a $0.44 fee:

--The new Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or Firm will be $0.10; \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This is the same as the rebate in the current SPY Options
Tier Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the new Fee to Add Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading
with Customer will be $0.44; \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Proposed $0.44 is a modest fee increase from the current
SPY Options Tier Schedule, which is $0.42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the new Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer, BX Options Market Maker, Customer, or Firm will be $0.25;
\19\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ This is the same as the rebate in the current SPY Options
Tier Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the new Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading
with Customer will be $0.42.\20\

    \20\ This is the same as the fee in the current SPY Options Tier
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Tier 3 in the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule, which
has the same requirements the current Tier 3 in the SPY Options Tier
Schedule, will be where Participant executes 0.15% or more of total
industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month.
Proposed Tier 3 will range from a $0.37 rebate to a $0.40 fee:

--The new Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or Firm will be $0.20; \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ This is the same as the rebate in the current SPY Options
Tier Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the new Fee to Add Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading
with Customer will be $0.40; \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Proposed $0.40 is a modest fee increase from the current
SPY Options Tier Schedule, which is $0.39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the new Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer, BX Options Market Maker, Customer, or Firm will be $0.37;
\23\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ This is the same as the rebate in the current SPY Options
Tier Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the new Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading
with Customer will be $0.39.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This is the same as the fee in the current SPY Options Tier
Schedule.

    Proposed Tier 4 in the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule, which
is modified from the current Tier 4 in the SPY Options Tier Schedule,
will be where Participant executes more than 10,000 BX Price
Improvement Auction (``PRISM'') \25\ Agency Contracts per month; or
Participant executes BX Options Market Maker volume of 0.30% or more of
total industry customer equity and ETF options ADV per month. If a
Participant qualifies for Tier 4 the rates applicable to this tier will
supersede any other Select Symbols tier rates that the Participant may
qualify for. Proposed Tier 4 will range from a $0.37 rebate to a $0.29
fee:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ PRISM is a Price Improvement Mechanism for all-electronic
BX Options whereby a buy and sell order may be submitted in one
order message to initiate an auction at a stop price and seek
potential price improvement. Options are traded electronically on BX
Options, and all options participants may respond to a PRISM
Auction, the duration of which is set at 200 milliseconds. PRISM
includes auto-match functionality in which a Participant (an
``Initiating Participant'') may electronically submit for execution
an order it represents as agent on behalf of customer, broker
dealer, or any other entity (``PRISM Order'') against principal
interest or against any other order it represents as agent (an
``Initiating Order'') provided it submits the PRISM Order for
electronic execution into the PRISM Auction pursuant [sic]. See
Chapter VI, Section 9; and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76301
(October 29, 2015), 80 FR 68347 (November 4, 2015) (SR-BX-2015-032)
(order approving BX PRISM).

--The new Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer, BX Options Market Maker, or Firm will be $0.25; \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ This is the same as the rebate in the current SPY Options
Tier Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the new Fee to Add Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading
with Customer will be $0.29; \27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Proposed $0.29 is, in order to further promote liquidity on
the Exchange, a modest fee decrease from the current SPY Options
Tier Schedule, which is $0.32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the new Rebate to Remove Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-
Customer, BX Options Market Maker, Customer, or Firm will be $0.37;
\28\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ This is the same as the rebate in the current SPY Options
Tier Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--the new Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trading
with Customer will be $0.25.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ This is the same as the fee in the current SPY Options Tier
Schedule.

    In addition, there are currently six explanatory notes in the SPY
Options Tier Schedule. In each such note the Exchange will, as
elsewhere in the fees and rebates schedule, replace ``SPY'' with
``Select Symbols.'' The Exchange proposes to also establish a fee on
one note that is not currently fee liable in the SPY Options Tier
Schedule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to state that BX Options
Market Maker fee to add liquidity in SPY [sic] Options will be $0.04
when trading with Firm, Non-Customer, or BX Options Market Maker.
    Chapter XV, Section 2 subsection (1) reflecting the proposed Select
Symbols Options Tier Schedule will read as follows:
Sec. 2 BX Options Market--Fees and Rebates
    The following charges shall apply to the use of the order execution
and routing services of the BX Options market for all securities.
    (1) Fees for Execution of Contracts on the BX Options Market:
* * * * *

                                      Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Rebate to add      Fee to add    Rebate to  remove   Fee to remove
                                                liquidity         liquidity         liquidity        liquidity
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When:                                                Customer      BX Options           Customer      BX Options
                                                                 market maker                       market maker
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trading with:                                   Non-Customer,        Customer      Non-Customer,        Customer
                                                   BX options                         BX options
                                                market maker,                      market maker,
                                                      or firm                          customer,
                                                                                or firm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1:
    Participant executes less than 0.05%                $0.00           $0.44              $0.00           $0.42
     of total industry customer equity and
     ETF option ADV contracts per month...
Tier 2:
    Participant executes 0.05% to less                   0.10            0.44               0.25            0.42
     than 0.15% of total industry customer
     equity and ETF option ADV contracts
     per month............................
Tier 3:
    Participant executes 0.15% or more of                0.20            0.40               0.37            0.39
     total industry customer equity and
     ETF option ADV contracts per month...
Tier 4:
    Participant executes more than 10,000                0.25            0.29               0.37            0.25
     PRISM Agency Contracts per month; or
     Participant executes BX Options
     Market Maker volume of 0.30% or more
     of total industry customer equity and
     ETF options ADV per month............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BX Options Select Symbol List
    The following are Select Symbols: ASHR, DIA, DXJ, EEM, EFA, EWJ,
EWT, EWW, EWY, EWZ, FAS, FAZ, FXE, FXI, FXP, GDX, GLD, HYG, IWM, IYR,
KRE, OIH, QID, QLD, QQQ, RSX, SDS, SKF, SLV, SPY, SRS, SSO, TBT, TLT,
TNA, TZA, UNG, URE, USO, UUP, UVXY, UYG, VXX, XHB, XLB, XLE, XLF, XLI,
XLK, XLP, XLU, XLV, XLY, XME, XOP, XRT
     BX Options Market Maker fee to add liquidity in Select
Symbols Options will be $0.04 when trading with Firm, Non-Customer, or
BX Options Market Maker.
     Firm fee to add liquidity and fee to remove liquidity in
Select Symbols Options will be $0.33 per contract, regardless of
counterparty.
     Non-Customer fee to add liquidity and fee to remove
liquidity in Select Symbols Options will be $0.46 per contract,
regardless of counterparty.
     BX Options Market Maker fee to remove liquidity in Select
Symbols Options will be $0.46 per contract when trading with Firm, Non-
Customer, or BX Options Market Maker.
     Customer fee to add liquidity in Select Symbols Options
when contra to another Customer is $0.33 per contract.
     Volume from all products listed on BX Options will apply
to the Select Symbols Options Tiers.
* * * * *
    The Exchange is proposing fees and rebate changes and adopting the
Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule at this time because it believes
that this will provide incentives for execution of contracts, and in
particular Select Symbols Options contracts, on the BX Options Market.
    The Exchange also believes that its proposal should provide
increased opportunities for participation in executions on the
Exchange, facilitating the ability of the Exchange to bring together
participants and encourage more robust competition for orders.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\30\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the
Act,\31\ in particular, in that it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls, and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \31\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 at 37499 (June 9,
2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\33\ (``NetCoalition'') the DC Circuit upheld the Commission's use of a
market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\34\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \34\ See id. at 534-535.
    \35\ See id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker

dealers'. . . .'' \36\ Although the court and the SEC were discussing
the cash equities markets, the Exchange believes that these views apply
with equal force to the options markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange [sic] Release
No. 59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770 (December 9, 2008) (SR-
NYSEArca-2006-21) at 73 FR at 74782-74783).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Chapter XV, Section 2 to modify
certain fees and rebates to adopt the Select Symbol Options Tier
Schedule for certain Penny Pilot Options. The proposed modified fees
and rebates and new Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule would, as
discussed, apply to Customers, BX Options Market Makers, Non-Customers,
and Firms. The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory and should provide increased
opportunities for participation in executions on the Exchange,
facilitating the ability of the Exchange to bring together participants
and encourage more robust competition for orders.
Change 1--Penny Pilot Options: Modify Fees and Rebates To Add the
Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule
    In Change 1, the Exchange proposes to convert its current SPY
Options Tier Schedule to the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule and
to set forth the BX Options Select Symbol List. The Select Symbols on
this list represent, similarly to SPY, some of the highest volume Penny
Pilot Options traded on the Exchange and in the U.S and are similar to
those of other options exchanges (e.g., the MIAX).
    As discussed, the proposed change updates the fees and rebates
schedule to indicate ``Select Symbols'' rather than ``SPY'' and keeps
the great majority of the current SPY Schedule fees and rebates
assessments and tiers exactly the same in the new Select Symbols
Options Tier Schedule. The proposed fee changes are in respect of the
Fee to Add Liquidity when BX Options Market Maker trades with Customer.
Each of the Tier 1, 2, and 3 changes is a modest fee increase from the
current schedule, not exceeding two pennies. The Tier 4 change is a fee
decrease from the current fee schedule in order to further promote
liquidity on the Exchange.\37\ The Exchange also proposes to change one
explanatory note applicable to the Select Symbols to make it fee
liable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Tier 4 is updated from the current SPY Options Tier
Schedule to give additional ways to achieve the tier requirements
through specified PRISM volume as well as options volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is reasonable because it continues to
encourage market participant behavior through the fees and rebates
system, which is an accepted methodology among options exchanges.\38\
Converting SPY Options Tier Schedule to the Select Symbols Options Tier
Schedule is reasonable because of the nature of Select Symbol options,
which are the most heavily traded options on the Exchange as well as in
the industry. By expanding from SPY Options to Select Symbol Options,
the Exchange is further promoting options liquidity [sic] the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See, e.g., fee and rebate schedules of other options
exchanges, including, but not limited to, NASDAQ Options Market
(``NOM''), NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), and Chicago Board Options
Exchange (``CBOE'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Select Symbol Options Tier
Schedule is reasonable because it is not a novel, untested structure
but rather is similar to what is offered by other options markets, such
as MIAX, and is based on the Exchange's existing SPY Options Tier
Schedule. The proposed Tiers in the Select Symbols Options Tier
Schedule clearly reflect the progressively increasing nature of
Participant executions structured for the purpose of attracting order
flow to the Exchange. This encourages market participant behavior
through progressive tiered fees and rebates using an accepted
methodology among options exchanges.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Tier 1 in the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule is, similarly to
Tier 1 in the current SPY Options Tier Schedule, set up to enable a
Participant to earn a Rebate to Add Liquidity or pay a Fee to Add
Liquidity in Select Symbols where the Participant executes less than
0.05% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts
per month.
    Tier 2 in the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule is, similarly to
Tier 2 in the current SPY Options Tier Schedule, set up to enable a
Participant to earn a Rebate to Add Liquidity or pay a Fee to Add
Liquidity in the Select Symbols where the Participant executes 0.05% to
less than 0.15% of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV
contracts per month.
    And Tier 3 in the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule is,
similarly to Tier 3 in the SPY Options Tier Schedule, set up to enable
a Participant to earn a Rebate to Add Liquidity or pay a Fee to Add
Liquidity in the Select Symbols to Participant [sic] executes 0.15% or
more of total industry customer equity and ETF option ADV contracts per
month. The fees and rebates that BX Options Market Makers and Customers
are assessed are, as has been discussed, almost all comparable to the
fees and rebates in the SPY Options Tier Schedule.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to also adjust the
current Tier 4 in the SPY Options Tier Schedule as reflected in the new
Tier 4 in the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule, in order to enable
a Participant to earn a Rebate to Add Liquidity or pay a Fee to Add
Liquidity in Select Symbols where the Participant executes more than
10,000 PRISM Agency Contracts per month; or Participant executes BX
Options Market Maker volume of 0.30% or more of total industry customer
equity and ETF options ADV per month. By so doing, the Exchange
encourages Participants to trade PRISM and/or make markets on the
exchange.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that making changes to add the
Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule in terms of Rebate to Add
Liquidity and Fee to Add Liquidity, and Rebate to Remove Liquidity and
Fee to Remove Liquidity, is reasonable because it encourages the
desired Customer behavior by attracting Customer interest in Select
Symbols to the Exchange. Customer activity enhances liquidity on the
Exchange for the benefit of all market participants and benefits all
market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which
attracts market makers. An increase in the activity of these market
participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants.
    The Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule is reasonable in that it
is, similarly to the current SPY Options Tier Schedule, set up to
incentivize Participants to direct liquidity to the Exchange; using
volume from all products listed on BX Options will further incentivize
Participants. As Participants execute more of total industry customer
equity and ETF option ADV contracts per month on the Exchange, they can
in certain categories earn higher rebates and be assessed lower fees.
For example, in the Select Symbols Options Tier Schedule the Tier 3
Rebate to Add Liquidity when Customer trading with Non-Customer, BX
Options Market Maker, or Firm is higher ($0.20) than the Tier 1 Rebate
to Add Liquidity ($0.00); and the Tier 3 Rebate to Remove Liquidity
when Customer trading with Non-Customer, BX Options Market Maker,
Customer, or Firm is higher ($0.37) that the Tier 2 Rebate to Remove
Liquidity ($0.25).
    Similarly, the proposed Fee to Add Liquidity when BX Option Market
Maker trading with Customer is lower for Tier 3 ($0.40) than for Tier 1
($0.44);

and, the Fee to Remove Liquidity when BX Option Market Maker trading
with Customer is lower for Tier 3 ($0.39) than for Tier 1 ($0.42).
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to indicate a $0.04 fee
assessment in the discussed BX Options Market Maker explanatory note.
This explanatory note, which is currently not fee liable for options on
SPY, will be fee liable for Select Symbols. The Exchange believes that
this is in line with its continued effort to promote liquidity on the
Exchange while covering costs through fees and rebates.
    Establishing the Select Symbol Options Tier Schedule is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory. This is because the Exchange's
proposal to assess fees and pay rebates according to Tiers 1, 2, 3, and
4 as proposed to be amended will apply uniformly to all similarly
situated Participants. Customers would earn a Rebate to Add Liquidity
and a Rebate to Remove Liquidity according to the Tiers,\40\ and BX
Market Makers would be assessed a Fee to Add Liquidity and a Fee to
Remove Liquidity according to the same Tiers per the Select Symbols
Options Tier Schedule; and certain fees would be the same regardless of
counterparty. The fee and rebate schedule as proposed continues to
reflect differentiation among different market participants. The
Exchange believes that the differentiation is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory, as well as reasonable, because transactions of
a BX Options Market Maker must constitute a course of dealings
reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and
orderly market, and BX Options Market Makers should not make bids or
offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with such
course of dealings. Further, all BX Options Market Makers are
designated as specialists on BX for all purposes under the Act or rules
thereunder.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Per a note to the Select Symbol Options Tier Schedule,
Customer fee to add liquidity in Select Symbols Options when contra
to another Customer is $0.33 per contract. The only change in this
note, which is currently applicable to the SPY Options Tier
Schedule, is that the note will be applicable to the Select Symbol
Options Tier Schedule.
    \41\ See Chapter VII, Section 5, entitled ``Obligations of
Market Makers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that by making the proposed changes it is
continuing to incentivize Participants to execute more volume on the
Exchange to further enhance liquidity in this market.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the Exchange does
not believe that its proposal to make changes to its Penny Pilot
Options to establish a Select Symbols Options Tiers Schedule will
impose any undue burden on competition, as discussed below.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which many
sophisticated and knowledgeable market participants can readily and do
send order flow to competing exchanges if they deem fee levels or
rebate incentives at a particular exchange to be excessive or
inadequate. Additionally, new competitors have entered the market and
still others are reportedly entering the market shortly. These market
forces ensure that the Exchange's fees and rebates remain competitive
with the fee structures at other trading platforms. In that sense, the
Exchange's proposal is actually pro-competitive because the Exchange is
simply continuing its fees and rebates for Penny Pilot Options and
establishing a Select Symbols Options Tiers Schedule in order to remain
competitive in the current environment.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In terms of inter-market
competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more
favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because
competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because
market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices,
the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this
market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
    In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange notes that price
differentiation among different market participants operating on the
Exchange (e.g., Customer and BX Options Market Maker) is reasonable.
Customer activity, for example, enhances liquidity on the Exchange for
the benefit of all market participants and benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities, which attracts
market makers. An increase in the activity of these market participants
(particularly in response to pricing) in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants.
    Moreover, unlike others market participants each BX Options Market
Maker commits to various obligations. These obligations include, for
example, transactions of a BX Market Maker must constitute a course of
dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a
fair and orderly market, and Market Makers should not make bids or
offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with such
course of dealings.\42\ In this instance, the proposed changes to the
fees and rebates to establish a Select Symbols Options Tiers Schedule,
does not impose a burden on competition because the Exchange's
execution and routing services are completely voluntary and subject to
extensive competition both from other exchanges and from off-exchange
venues. If the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market
participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as
a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed
changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution
venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
Additionally, the changes proposed herein are pro-competitive to the
extent that they continue to allow the Exchange to promote and maintain
order executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See Chapter VII, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\43\ the Exchange
has designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2016-016 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2016-016. 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-BX-2016-016 and
should be submitted on or before April 6, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-05854 Filed 3-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51141-51144]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20907]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R04-RCRA-2015-0294; FRL-9932-93-Region 4]

North Carolina: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: North Carolina has applied to the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for final authorization of changes to its
hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all
requirements needed to qualify for final authorization, and is
authorizing the State's changes through this direct final rule. In the
``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register, EPA is also
publishing a separate document that serves as the proposal to authorize
these changes. EPA believes this action is not controversial and does
not expect comments that oppose it. Unless EPA receives written
comments that oppose this authorization during the comment period, the
decision to authorize North Carolina's changes to its hazardous waste
program will take effect. If EPA receives comments that oppose this
action, EPA will publish a document in the Federal Register withdrawing
today's direct final rule before it takes effect, and the separate
document published in today's ``Proposed Rules'' section of this
Federal Register will serve as the proposal to authorize the changes.

DATES: This final authorization will become effective on October 23,
2015 unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 23, 2015.
If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of
this direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that this authorization will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
RCRA-2015-0294, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (prior to faxing, please notify the
EPA contact listed below).
     Mail: Send written comments to Gwendolyn Gleaton, RCRA
Programs and Materials Management Section, Materials and Waste
Management Branch, Resource Conservation and Restoration Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to
Gwendolyn Gleaton, RCRA Programs and Materials Management Section,
Materials and Waste Management Branch, Resource Conservation and
Restoration Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta
Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: EPA must receive your comments by September 23, 2015.
Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-RCRA-2015-0294. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential

Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made publicly available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. (For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm).
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy.
    You may view and copy North Carolina's application and associated
publicly available materials from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the
following locations: EPA, Region 4, Resource Conservation and
Restoration Division, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; and the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 217
West Jones Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27603; telephone number:
(919) 707-8219. Interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least a week in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gwendolyn Gleaton, RCRA Programs and
Materials Management Section, Materials and Waste Management Branch,
Resource Conservation and Restoration Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why are revisions to state programs necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA
section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste
program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent
than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must
change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to
State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or
regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur.
Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to
EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,
260 through 268, 270, 273, and 279.
    New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that EPA promulgates pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) take effect in authorized States at the
same time that they take effect in unauthorized States. Thus, EPA will
implement those requirements and prohibitions in North Carolina,
including the issuance of new permits implementing those requirements,
until the State is granted authorization to do so.

B. What decisions has EPA made in this rule?

    On March 9, 2014, North Carolina submitted a final complete program
revision application seeking authorization of changes to its hazardous
waste program that correspond to certain Federal rules promulgated
between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2014 (also known as RCRA Clusters XIX
through XXIII). EPA concludes that North Carolina's application to
revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory
requirements established by RCRA, as set forth in RCRA section 3006(b),
42 U.S.C. 6926(b), and 40 CFR part 271. Therefore, EPA grants North
Carolina final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program
with the changes described in the authorization application, and as
outlined below in Section G of this document.
    North Carolina has responsibility for permitting treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities within its borders (except in Indian
Country) and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described
in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of HSWA,
as discussed above.

C. What is the effect of this authorization decision?

    The effect of this decision is that the changes described in North
Carolina's authorization application will become part of the authorized
State hazardous waste program, and will therefore be federally
enforceable. North Carolina will continue to have primary enforcement
authority and responsibility for its State hazardous waste program. EPA
retains its authorities under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,
including its authority to:
     Conduct inspections, and require monitoring, tests,
analyses, or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements, including authorized State
program requirements, and suspend or revoke permits; and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
    This action does not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which North Carolina is
being authorized by today's action are already effective and
enforceable requirements under State law, and are not changed by
today's action.

D. Why wasn't there a proposed rule before today's rule?

    Along with this direct final rule, EPA is publishing a separate
document in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal Register
that serves as the proposal to authorize these State program changes.
EPA did not publish a proposed rule before today because EPA views this
as a routine program change and does not expect comments that oppose
this approval. EPA is providing an opportunity for public comment now,
as described in Section E of this document.

E. What happens if EPA receives comments that oppose this action?

    If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, EPA will
withdraw today's direct final rule by publishing a document in the
Federal Register before the rule becomes effective. EPA will base any
further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on
the proposed rule

mentioned in the previous section, after considering all comments
received during the comment period, and will address all such comments
in a later final rule. You may not have another opportunity to comment
on these State program changes. If you want to comment on this
authorization, you must do so at this time.
    If EPA receives comments that oppose only the authorization of a
particular change to the State hazardous waste program, EPA will
withdraw that part of today's direct final rule, but the authorization
of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become
effective on the date specified above. The Federal Register withdrawal
document will specify which part of the authorization will become
effective, and which part is being withdrawn.

F. What has North Carolina previously been authorized for?

    North Carolina initially received final authorization on December
14, 1984, effective December 31, 1984 (49 FR 48694), to implement a
hazardous waste management program. EPA granted authorization for
changes to North Carolina's program on the following dates: March 25,
1986, effective April 8, 1986 (51 FR 10211); August 5, 1988, effective
October 4, 1988 (53 FR 1988); February 9, 1989, effective April 10,
1989 (54 FR 6290); September 22, 1989, effective November 21, 1989 (54
FR 38993); January 18, 1991, effective March 19, 1991 (56 FR 1929);
April 10, 1991, effective June 9, 1991 (56 FR 14474); July 19, 1991,
effective September 17, 1991 (56 FR 33206); April 27, 1992, effective
June 26, 1992 (57 FR 15254); December 12, 1992, effective February 16,
1993 (57 FR 59825); January 27, 1994, effective March 28, 1994 (59 FR
3792); April 4, 1994, effective June 3, 1994 (59 FR 15633); June 23,
1994, effective August 22, 1994 (59 FR 32378); November 10, 1994,
effective January 9, 1995 (59 FR 56000); September 27, 1995, effective
November 27, 1995 (60 FR 49800); April 25, 1996, effective June 24,
1996 (61 FR 18284); October 23, 1998, effective December 22, 1998 (63
FR 56834); August 25, 1999, effective October 25, 1999 (64 FR 46298);
February 28, 2002, effective April 29, 2002 (67 FR 9219); December 14,
2004, effective February 14, 2005 (69 FR 74444); March 23, 2005,
effective May 23, 2005 (70 FR 14556); February 7, 2011, effective April
8, 2011 (76 FR 6561); and June 14, 2013, effective August 13, 2013 (78
FR 35766).

G. What changes is EPA authorizing with this action?

    On March 9, 2014, North Carolina submitted a final complete program
revision application seeking authorization of its changes in accordance
with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA now makes an immediate final decision, subject
to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that North
Carolina's hazardous waste program revisions are equivalent to,
consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program, and
therefore satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for
final authorization. Therefore, EPA grants North Carolina final
authorization for the following program changes:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Analogous state authority
  Description of Federal requirement          Federal Register date and page                     \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
220--Academic Laboratories Generator   73 FR 72912, 12/01/2008....................  15A NCAC 13A .0106(a); and
 Standards.                                                                          15A NCAC 13A .0107(a) &
                                                                                (i).
223--Hazardous Waste Technical         75 FR 12989, 03/18/2010....................  15A NCAC 13A .0102(b); 15A
 Corrections and Clarifications.       75 FR 31716, 06/04/2010....................   NCAC 13A .0106(a), (c), (d)
                                                                                & (f); 15A NCAC 13A
                                                                                .0107(a)-(d) & (f); 15A
                                                                                NCAC 13A .0108(a); 15A NCAC
                                                                                13A .0109(e), (f), (o) &
                                                                                (s); 15A NCAC 13A .0110(d),
                                                                                (e) & (n); 15A NCAC 13A
                                                                                .0111(a)-(d); 15A NCAC 13A
                                                                                .0112(c); and 15A NCAC 13A
                                                                                .0113(a).
225--Removal of Saccharin and Its      75 FR 78918, 12/17/2010....................  15A NCAC 13A .0106(d) & (f);
 Salts from the Lists of Hazardous                                                   and 15A NCAC 13A .0112(c) &
 Wastes.                                                                             (e).
226--Academic Laboratories Generator   75 FR 79304, 12/20/2010....................  15A NCAC 13A .0107(i).
 Standards Technical Corrections.
227--Revision of the Land Disposal     76 FR 34147, 06/13/2011....................  15A NCAC 13A .0112(c).
 Treatment Standards for Carbamate
 Wastes.
228--Hazardous Waste Technical         77 FR 22229, 04/13/2012....................  15A NCAC 13A .0106(d); and
 Corrections and Clarifications Rule.                                                15A NCAC 13A .0111(a).
229--Conditional Exclusions for        78 FR 46448, 07/31/2013....................  15A NCAC 13A .0102(b); and
 Solvent Contaminated Wipes.                                                         15A NCAC 13A .0106(a).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The North Carolina provisions are from the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Rules, 15A NCAC 13A,
  effective as of May 17, 2011.

H. Where are the revised State rules different from the Federal rules?

    There are no State requirements in this program revision considered
to be more stringent or broader in scope than the Federal requirements.

I. Who handles permits after the authorization takes effect?

    North Carolina will issue permits for all the provisions for which
it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will
continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of
permits which EPA issued prior to the effective date of this
authorization until they expire or are terminated. EPA will not issue
any more permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed
in the Table above after the effective date of this authorization. EPA
will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for
which North Carolina is not authorized.

J. How does today's action affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
North Carolina?

    North Carolina is not authorized to carry out its hazardous waste
program in Indian Country within the State, which includes the Eastern
Band of Cherokee Indians. EPA will continue to implement and administer
the RCRA program in these lands.

K. What is codification and is EPA codifying North Carolina's hazardous
waste program as authorized in this rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
program into the Code of Federal Regulations. EPA does this by
referencing the authorized State rules in

40 CFR part 272. EPA is not codifying the authorization of North
Carolina's changes at this time. However, EPA reserves the amendment of
40 CFR part 272, subpart II, for the authorization of North Carolina's
program changes at a later date.

L. Administrative Requirements

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This
action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action
authorizes pre-existing requirements under State law and does not
impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State
law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this
action also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities
of Tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). This action 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, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it
merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA
hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This
action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not
make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
    Under RCRA section 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for
authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it
reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this document and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
action will be effective October 23, 2015, unless objections to this
authorization are received.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, and 6974(b).

    Dated: June 26, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2015-20907 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42492-42494]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19032]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Chapter I

[Docket No. FDA-2017-N-5092]

Review of Existing Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
Regulatory and Information Collection Requirements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Request for comments and information.

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

SUMMARY: As part of the implementation of Executive Order 13771
entitled, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' and
Executive Order 13777 entitled, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform
Agenda,'' the Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
seeking comments and information from interested parties to help FDA
identify existing regulations and related paperwork requirements that
could be modified, repealed, or replaced, consistent with the law, to
achieve meaningful burden reduction while allowing us to achieve our
public health mission and fulfill statutory obligations. This document
relates to the products regulated by the Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (CBER).

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on this document by
December 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before December 7, 2017. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of December 7, 2017. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions.'')

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as

well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and
identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in
``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-N-5092 for ``Review of Existing Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research Regulatory and Information Collection
Requirements.'' Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see
ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff Office between
9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' We will review
this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in our
consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed
confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for
public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both
copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name
and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide
this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your
comments and you must identify this information as ``confidential.''
Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not be disclosed except
in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law.
For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets,
see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff Office, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. FDA's Regulatory Mission

    FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by: (1)
Ensuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary
drugs, biological products, and medical devices; (2) ensuring the
safety, security, and appropriate labeling of our nation's food supply,
products that emit radiation, and cosmetics; and (3) regulating the
manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products. Equally
important, FDA promotes the public health by fostering and supporting
innovative approaches and solutions for some of our nation's most
compelling health and medical challenges.
    FDA's CBER regulates a wide range of biological products and
related products including: Allergenics, blood and blood products,
certain medical devices for blood and tissues, gene therapies, human
cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products, vaccines, and
xenotransplantation products. This document is seeking comments and
information solely on regulations and approved information collections
related to these product areas.

B. The Regulatory Reform Agenda: Executive Orders 13771 and 13777

    On January 30, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13771,
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (Ref. 1). This
Executive Order states that the policy of the Executive Branch is to be
prudent and financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from
both public and private sources, and that it is essential to manage the
costs associated with complying with Federal regulations. On February
24, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13777, entitled
``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda'' (Ref. 2). The purpose of
this Executive Order is to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens
placed on the American people. Executive Order 13777 directs each
Agency to establish a Regulatory Reform Task Force (RRTF) to evaluate
existing regulations and identify those that may merit repeal,
replacement, or modification. Section 3(d) of the Executive Order
provides that, at a minimum, each RRTF must attempt to identify
regulations that:
     Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
     Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
     Impose costs that exceed benefits;
     Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
     Are inconsistent with the requirements of the Information
Quality Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular
those regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information,
or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
     Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other
Presidential directives that have been subsequently rescinded or
substantially modified.

II. Request for Comments and Information

    To assist with our implementation of Executive Orders 13771 and
13777 and support the work of the RRTF of the Department of Health and
Human Services, FDA is issuing this Request for Information soliciting
broad public comment on ways we can change our regulations to achieve
meaningful burden reduction while continuing to achieve our public
health mission and fulfill statutory obligations. We request comment,
including supporting technical, scientific, economic, or other data,
from all persons and entities significantly affected by FDA
regulations, including consumers, patients and caregivers, researchers,
healthcare institutions, the regulated industry, trade associations,
public interest organizations, academia, and State, local, and tribal
governments, as well as any other interested stakeholder. These
comments and data will supplement and inform our own ongoing,
systematic review of our regulations.
    The following list of questions includes those that FDA is using to
guide our initial review of our regulations. This list is intended to
help the public in providing comments, not to restrict the issues that
may be addressed.
     Is the regulation still current, or is it outdated or
unnecessary in some way?
    [cir] Have there been advancements and innovations in science,
technology, or FDA or industry practice, or any other changes that
suggest repeal of or modification to the regulation may be warranted or
appropriate?
    [cir] Has the regulation been superseded or made irrelevant or
unenforceable by statute, another FDA regulation or guidance, a
regulation by another

Federal Agency, or controlling legal authority? If yes, identify the
statute, regulation, guidance, or legal precedent and explain what FDA
regulation is affected and in what way it is affected.
    [cir] Is this regulation duplicative of requirements in other FDA
regulations or other Federal Agency regulations? If yes, identify the
overlapping regulation(s) and responsible Federal Agency and describe
the way(s) in which the regulations overlap, as well as any suggestions
with respect to how best to resolve the duplication.
     Have regulated entities had difficulties complying with
the regulation? If yes, identify what entity or entities have had such
difficulties and the nature of the difficulties.
     Does the regulation impose requirements that are also
provided for in voluntary or consensus standards or guidance by third
party organizations (e.g., International Council for Harmonisation,
International Organization for Standardization, Codex Alimentarius)? Do
the entities covered by these standards or guidance take steps to meet
the standards and to document that they meet the standards? If met, do
the standards achieve the same level of public health protection as the
FDA regulation? Are there entities who are not covered by these
standards or guidances or who choose not to observe them?
     Does the regulation contain redundant, outdated, or
unnecessary collections of information or retention of records, e.g.,
reporting, recordkeeping, or labeling requirements? Explain in your
response why the information is redundant, outdated, or unnecessary.
     Could the goal of the regulation be achieved by less
costly means that would provide the same level of public health
protection? If yes, provide examples of alternatives that may reduce
costs to industry while retaining the same level of public health
protection.
     What factors should FDA consider in selecting and
prioritizing regulations and reporting requirements for reform?
    The most current version of FDA regulations may be found at https://www.ecfr.gov. We request that comments be as specific as possible,
include any supporting data or other information, such as cost
information, provide a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) citation when
referencing a specific regulation, and provide specific suggestions
regarding repeal, replacement, or modification. For comments relating
to an information collection, cite to the approved information
collection request and include the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) control number.
    In addition, in order to enable us to more efficiently review and
consider comments, we ask that the comments be submitted in the format
shown in table 1 of this document.

                 Table 1--Format for Submitting Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Name of regulation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of product or FDA Center
 regulating the product.
Citation to Code of Federal Regulations
 and statutory citation (as
 applicable).
Approved information collection and OMB
 Control Number (as applicable).
Brief description of concern...........  (For example, what innovation
                                          makes the regulation outdated?
                                          Why?)
Available data on cost or economic       (Quantified costs and/or cost
 impact.                                  savings. Qualitative
                                          description, if needed.)
Proposed solution......................  (Include your solution. For
                                          example, how would you modify
                                          the regulation? Provide
                                          specific text if you are
                                          recommending a modification.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management
Staff Office (see ADDRESSES) and are available for viewing by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday;
they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov.
FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document
publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change
over time.

1. Executive Order 13771 (January 30, 2017); available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/03/2017-02451/reducing-regulation-and-controlling-regulatory-costs.
2. Executive Order 13777 (February 24, 2017); available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/01/2017-04107/enforcing-the-regulatory-reform-agenda.

    Dated: August 30, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-19032 Filed 9-7-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76166-76167]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31001]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-3637; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-8203; FMCSA-
2002-12294; FMCSA-2006-24783 FMCSA-2006-26066]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew the exemptions from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for
8 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from
the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise
safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemption renewals
will provide a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than
the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

DATES: This decision is effective January 13, 2013. Comments must be
received on or before January 25, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) numbers: Docket No. [FMCSA-1998-3637; FMCSA-
2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-8203; FMCSA-2002-12294; FMCSA-2006-24783 FMCSA-
2006-26066], using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act
heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, 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.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may renew an exemption
from the vision requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), which applies to
drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a two-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 procedures for requesting an exemption (including
renewals) are set out in 49 CFR part 381.

Exemption Decision

    This notice addresses 8 individuals who have requested renewal of
their exemptions in accordance with FMCSA procedures. FMCSA has
evaluated these 8 applications for renewal on their merits and decided
to extend each exemption for a renewable two-year period. They are:

David S. Brumfield (KY)

Robert R. Buis (KY)
Leon C. Flynn (TX)
Gerald R. Rietmann (MN)
Arthur A. Sappington (IN)
David W. Skillman (WA)
William H. Smith (AL)
Edward C. Williams (AL)

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) That each individual has a physical examination every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provides a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file and retains a copy of the certification on his/her
person while driving for presentation to a duly authorized Federal,
State, or local enforcement official. Each exemption will be valid for
two years unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be
rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application for additional two year periods. In accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of the 8 applicants has satisfied the
entry conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision
requirements (63 FR 30285; 63 FR 54519; 65 FR 45817; 65 FR 66293; 65 FR
77066; 67 FR 46016; 67 FR 57267; 67 FR 71610; 68 FR 1654; 69 FR 71098
71 FR 32183; 71 FR 41310; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 1050; 72 FR 1054; 73 FR
75806; 73 FR 78421; 73 FR 78422; 75 FR 79079). Each of these 8
applicants has requested renewal of the exemption and has submitted
evidence showing that the vision in the better eye continues to meet
the requirement specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision
impairment is stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety
while driving with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two
years indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements.
    These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each
renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA will review comments received at any time concerning a
particular driver's safety record and determine if the continuation of
the exemption is consistent with the requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315. However, FMCSA requests that interested parties with
specific data concerning the safety records of these drivers submit
comments by January 25, 2013.
    FMCSA believes that the requirements for a renewal of an exemption
under
    49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 can be satisfied by initially granting
the renewal and then requesting and evaluating, if needed, subsequent
comments submitted by interested parties. As indicated above, the
Agency previously published notices of final disposition announcing its
decision to exempt these 8 individuals from the vision requirement in
49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final decision to grant an exemption to each
of these individuals was made on the merits of each case and made only
after careful consideration of the comments received to its notices of
applications. The notices of applications stated in detail the
qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant for
an exemption from the vision requirements. That information is
available by consulting the above cited Federal Register publications.
    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

    Issued on: December 12, 2012.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-31001 Filed 12-21-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 197 (Friday, October 13, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47635]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22098]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0436; FRL-9969-35-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; AL; VOC Definitions and Particulate Emissions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing the August 16, 2017, direct
final rule that approves an Alabama state implementation plan (SIP)
revision related to ``volatile organic compounds'' (VOCs) and
particulate emissions. EPA will address the comment in a subsequent
final action based upon the proposed rulemaking action, also published
on August 16, 2017. EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 82 FR 38841, on August 16,
2017, is withdrawn, effective October 13, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wong, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Wong can also
be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 16, 2017 (82 FR 38841), EPA
published a direct final rule approving a SIP revision submitted by the
State of Alabama, through the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM). EPA took a direct final action to approve the May
19, 2017, submission that revises ADEM Rule 335-3-1-.02--Definitions
and Rule 335-3-4-.08--Wood Waste Boilers. The rulemaking also revises
the definition of VOCs, corrects a typographical error and removes
particulate emission and opacity limits for Talladega County.
    In the direct final rule, EPA explained that the Agency was
publishing the rule without prior proposal because the Agency viewed
the submittal as a non-controversial SIP amendment and anticipated no
adverse comments. Further, EPA explained that the Agency was publishing
a separate document in the proposed rules section of the Federal
Register to serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should an
adverse comment be filed. EPA also noted that the rule would be
effective generally 30 days after the close of the public comment
period, without further notice unless the Agency received adverse
comment by the close of the public comment period. EPA explained that
if the Agency received such comments, then EPA would publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule would
not take effect. It was also explained that all public comments
received would then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
the proposed rule, and that EPA would not institute a second comment
period on this action.
    EPA received one adverse comment from a single Commenter on the
aforementioned rule. As a result of the comment received, EPA is
withdrawing the direct final rule approving the aforementioned changes
to the Alabama SIPs. EPA will address the comment in a separate final
action based on the proposed action also published on August 16, 2017
(82 FR 38865). EPA will not open a second comment period for this
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 29, 2017.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
Accordingly, the amendments to 40 CFR 52.50(c) published on August 16,
2017 (82 FR 38841), are withdrawn effective October 13, 2017.

[FR Doc. 2017-22098 Filed 10-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P