[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 232 (Tuesday, December 3, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72608-72609]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28947]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2013-0698; FRL-9903-73-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Missouri which
revises the written reporting requirements for maintenance, start-up,
or shutdown activities; updates the information a source operator must
provide to the department when a notice of excess emissions is
received; and corrects references in the reporting and record keeping
section.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 2, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2013-0698, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery or Courier: Amy Bhesania, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2013-0698. 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 available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket. All documents in the electronic 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 at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219. EPA requests that you contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your
inspection. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bhesania, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Missouri SIP submitted
to EPA on July 8, 2010 which amend 10 CSR 10-6.050 Start-up, Shutdown,
and Malfunction Conditions. Specifically, Missouri amended subsection
3(B) to remove the option for verbal notification and therefore only
written notification is allowed for any maintenance, start-up, or
shutdown activity which is expected to cause an excess release of
emissions that exceeds one hour. This change makes the written
notification requirements consistent for subsections 3(B) which covers
maintenance, start-up and shutdown, and 3(A) which covers malfunctions.
Subparagrah 3(B)3 was removed because the requirement was only
applicable to malfunctions which is addressed in subsection 3(A).
    The remaining revisions to the rule are administrative changes
which revise the rule to be consistent with the state's standard rule
format or make other minor clarifying changes. Subparagraphs 3(B)3
through 3(B)9 were renumbered to adjust for the removal of item 3(B)3.
Subparagraph 3(C)2 includes minor administrative changes to meet the
state's standard rule format. Subparagraph 3(C)2A and 3(C)2B were
removed because they were redundant and replaced with references to the
appropriate applicable subsections of the rule. Subsection 4(B) was
revised to be consistent with the state's standard rule format.
    In a separate action on February 22, 2013, EPA has proposed to
address a petition by Sierra Club related to SSM provisions, including
10 CSR 10-6.050(3)(C) (78 FR 12459). In this separate action, EPA
proposed to deny the petitioner's request that EPA take action under
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110 (k)(5) or (6) to direct the

state to revise this provision. The revisions proposed in today's
action do not address the sections of the regulation challenged by the
Sierra Club in its petition. The revisions proposed in today's action
clarify and strengthen the Missouri SIP. By removing the option for
oral notification in 10 CSR 10-6.050(3)(B), and requiring written
notification, the Missouri SIP is more stringent. The revision in 10
CSR 10-6.050(3)(C)2. A. clarifies the notification requirements for
malfunctions by referring to section 10 CSR 10-6.050(3)(A). The
revision in 10 CSR 10-6.050 (3)(C)2.B. clarifies the general
notification requirements for maintenance, startup, or shutdown
activities by referring to the general notification requirements set
forth in 10 CSR 10-6.050(3)(B).
    The revisions proposed in today's action are consistent with CAA
requirements for SIP provisions and do not violate the anti-backsliding
provisions in section 110(l) or section 193 of the CAA because they are
SIP strengthening and do not interfere with any applicable requirements
concerning attainment or reasonable further progress nor do they affect
control measures in effect prior to the 1990 CAA Amendments related to
nonattainment areas. Further, these proposed revisions are consistent
with the action proposed by EPA on February 22, 2013 as mentioned above
(78 FR 12459).

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In
addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive SIP
requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing
regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the request to amend the Missouri SIP
by approving the state's request to amend 10 CSR 10-6.050 Start-Up,
Shutdown, and Malfunction to update written reporting requirements,
correct references, and other minor clarifying changes. Approval of
these revisions will ensure consistency between state and Federally-
approved rules. EPA has determined that these changes will not relax
the SIP or adversely impact air emissions.
    We are processing this as a proposed action because we are
soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will
occur after consideration of any comments.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 20, 2013.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2013-28947 Filed 12-2-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 35 (Thursday, February 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5550-5552]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02966]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0004]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 12 individuals
for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will
enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without
meeting the vision requirement in one eye.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0004 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 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: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0004), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2019-0004, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2019-0004, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and
choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

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

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds such exemption would
likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater
than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The
statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the
five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-
year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical
certification.
    The 12 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber.
    In July 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the
Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting
standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to
meet (Qualification of Drivers; Vision Waivers, 57 FR 31458, July 16,
1992). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998,
following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing
exemptions made by Sec.  4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9,
1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the

procedures established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case
basis upon application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision
standards of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past
three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in
evaluating future safety, according to several research studies
designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of
these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future
performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic
violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-
1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving
performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better
than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345,
March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers
demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a
conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying
conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to
have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate
safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used three consecutive
years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first two
years with their experiences in the final year.

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Gary W. Brockway

    Mr. Brockway, 63, has had a retinal vein occlusion in his right eye
since 2015. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist
stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Brockway has sufficient vision to perform
the driving task [sic] required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Brockway reported that he has driven straight trucks for 44 years,
accumulating 440,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 44
years, accumulating 880,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa.
His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert W. Estes

    Mr. Estes, 47, has had a chorioretinal scar in his left eye since
1971. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye,
counting fingers. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist
stated, ``In conclusion of the examination results, in my opinion,
Roger Estes has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Estes reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 110,000 miles. He
holds an operator's license from Missouri. His driving record for the
last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Gilbert J. Graybill

    Mr. Graybill, 41, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated,
``In my professional opinion, Mr. Graybill displays sufficient vision
function to commercially drive.'' Mr. Graybill reported that he has
driven straight trucks for three years, accumulating 260,000 miles. He
holds an operator's license from Oklahoma. His driving record for the
last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Richard D. Livingston, Jr.

    Mr. Livingston, 42, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated,
``It is my medical opinion that Richard Livingston has the visual
acuity skills needed to safely operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Livingston reported that he has driven straight trucks for 22 years,
accumulating 44,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Wisconsin. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Edgar H. Meraz Gardea

    Mr. Meraz Gardea, 37, has had a macular hole in his left eye since
2004. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye,
20/100. Following an examination in 2018, his ophthalmologist stated,
``Mr. Meraz has been driving commercial vehicle for many years and has
the sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Meraz Gardea reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 19 years, accumulating 231,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 17 years, accumulating 207,740 miles. He holds
an operator's license from New Mexico. His driving record for the last
three years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation
in a CMV: Failure to obey traffic signal or light.

Joshua G. Millican

    Mr. Millican, 36, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2018 his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Mullican
[sic] has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks and
requirements needed to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Millican
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating
600,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for ten years,
accumulating 750,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio. His
driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Daniel C. Reichert

    Mr. Reichert, 41, has a macular scar in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1999. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
400, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his
optometrist stated, ``I feel that Mr. Reichert is adequate to operate a
commercial vehicle with his peripheral vision in the right eye and a
normal left

eye.'' Mr. Reichert reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14
years, accumulating 112,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
14 years, accumulating 154,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from
Georgia. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Gregory D. Shirah

    Mr. Shirah, 53, has had macular degeneration in his right eye since
2015. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye,
20/25. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, ``Mr.
Shirah has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Shirah reported that he has driven straight trucks for seven years,
accumulating 350,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 20
years, accumulating two million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Alabama. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Balwant Singh

    Mr. Singh, 28, has a macular scar in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2013. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2018, his
optometrist stated, ``Based on today's findings, it is my medical
opinion that I believe Mr. Balwant Singh has sufficient, stable vision
in order to perform all tasks required of him to safely operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Singh reported that he has driven straight
trucks for six years, accumulating 420,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for six years, accumulating 420,000 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last three
years shows no crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a
CMV; driving in an improper lane.

Tristan A. Twito

    Mr. Twito, 35 has had chorioretinal scarring in his left eye due to
a traumatic incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/20, and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in
2018, his optometrist stated, ``The patient has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Twito reported that he has driven straight trucks for one year,
accumulating 30,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 12
years, accumulating 1.2 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Texas. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael L. Watters, Sr.

    Mr. Watters, 63, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
incident in 2004. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/30. Following an examination in
2018, his optometrist stated, ``Patient Michael Watters . . . has been
determined by his optometrist to have sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Watters
reported that he has driven straight trucks for four years,
accumulating 512,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for eight
years, accumulating 1.19 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last three years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Dana J. York

    Mr. York, 50, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
80. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, ``Patient
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. York reported that he has driven tractor-
trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 400,000 miles. He holds
an operator's license from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the
last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated in
the dates section of the notice.

    Issued on: February 13, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-02966 Filed 2-20-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 228 (Monday, November 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73008-73010]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30561]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0152]

Technical Report on Fatality Risk, Mass, and Footprint of Model
Year 2000-2007 Passenger Cars and LTVs

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for comments on technical report.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces NHTSA's publication of a technical
report describing relationships between a vehicle's mass, footprint
(size), and body type and its rate of involvement in fatal crashes. The
report's title is: Relationships Between Fatality Risk, Mass, and
Footprint in Model Year 2000-2007 Passenger Cars and LTVs--Preliminary
Report.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than January 27, 2012.

ADDRESSES:
    Report: The technical report is available on the Internet for
viewing on line or downloading in PDF format at the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. It is item no. 0023 in Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0152. You may
access it by going to http://www.regulations.gov, typing NHTSA-2010-
0152-0023 in the box under ``Enter Keyword or ID'' and

clicking on ``Search,'' clicking on ``U.S. DOT/NHTSA--Report:
Relationships Between Fatality Risk, Mass, and Footprint in Model Years
2000-2007--Preliminary Report,'' and then clicking on the small orange
box labeled ``PDF.'' Or you may go directly to http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2010-0152-0023 and then
click on the small orange box labeled ``PDF.'' You may obtain a copy of
the report free of charge by sending a self-addressed mailing label to
Charles J. Kahane (NVS-431), National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments: You may submit comments [identified by Docket Number
NHTSA-2010-0152] by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-(202) 493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may call Docket Management at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see
the Procedural Matters section of this document. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles J. Kahane, Chief, Evaluation
Division, NVS-431, National Center for Statistics and Analysis,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room W53-312, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mass reduction while holding a vehicle's
footprint (size) constant is a potential strategy for meeting
footprint-based CAFE and GHG standards. An important corollary issue is
the possible effect of mass reduction that maintains footprint on fatal
crashes. One way to estimate these effects is statistical analyses of
societal fatality rates per VMT, by vehicles' mass and footprint, for
the current on-road vehicle fleet. Societal fatality rates include
occupants of all vehicles in the crash as well as pedestrians. The
analyses comprised MY 2000-2007 cars and LTVs in CY 2002-2008 crashes.
Fatality rates were derived from FARS data, 13 State crash files, and
registration and mileage data from R.L. Polk. The table presents the
estimated percent increase in societal fatality rates per 100-pound
mass reduction while holding footprint constant for five classes of
vehicles:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fatality increase (%) per 100-pound mass
                                    reduction while holding footprint
   MY 2000-2007 CY 2002-2008                    constant
                               -----------------------------------------
                                Point estimate    95% Confidence bounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cars < 3,106 pounds...........            1.44  +.29 to +2.59
Cars = 3,106 pounds             .47  -.58 to +1.52
CUVs and minivans.............            -.46  -1.75 to +.83
Truck-based LTVs < 4,594                   .52  -.43 to +1.46
 pounds.
Truck-based LTVs =             -.39  -1.06 to +.27
 4,594 pounds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only the 1.44 percent risk increase in the lighter cars is
statistically significant. There are non-significant increases in the
heavier cars and the lighter truck-based LTVs and non-significant
societal benefits for mass reduction in CUVs, minivans, and the heavier
truck-based LTVs. Based on these results, potential combinations of
mass reductions that maintain footprint and are proportionately
somewhat higher for the heavier vehicles may be safety-neutral or
better as point estimates and, in any case, unlikely to significantly
increase fatalities. The primarily non-significant results are not due
to a paucity of data, but because the societal effect of mass reduction
while maintaining footprint, if any, is small.
    This preliminary report is currently undergoing peer review.
Information about the review is available in Docket No. NHTSA-2010-
0152, including the peer-review charge at NHTSA-2010-0152-0024 and the
names of the reviewers at NHTSA-2010-0152-0025.
    This report updates and supersedes earlier NHTSA reports on vehicle
mass, size and fatality risk issued in 2010 (75 FR 25324, Docket No.
NHTSA-2010-0152, report available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/CAFE_2012-2016_FRIA_04012010.pdf, pp. 464-542);
2003 (68 FR 66153, Docket No. NHTSA-2003-16318, report available at
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809662.PDF); and 1997 (62 FR 34491,
Docket No. NHTSA-1997-3725, report available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808570.PDF).

Procedural Matters

How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this subject?

    NHTSA welcomes public review of the evaluation plan and invites the
reviewers to comment about the selection, priority, and schedule of the
regulations to be evaluated. The agency is interested in learning of
any additional data that may be useful in the evaluations. NHTSA will
submit to the Docket a response to the comments and, if appropriate,
will supplement or revise the evaluation plan.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket
number of this document (NHTSA-2010-0152) in your comments.
    Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR
553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://regulations.gov.
    Please send two paper copies of your comments to Docket Management,
fax

them, or use the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The mailing address is
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, M-30,
West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. The fax number is 1-(202) 493-2251. To use the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    We also request, but do not require you to send a copy to Charles
J. Kahane, Chief, Evaluation Division, NVS-431, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Room W53-312, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590 (or email them to chuck.kahane@dot.gov). He
can check if your comments have been received at the Docket and he can
expedite their review by NHTSA.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission,
including the information you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).
    In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Management Facility, M-30, West Building, Ground
Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
or submit them via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

Will the agency consider late comments?

    In our response, we will consider all comments that Docket
Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing
date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

James F. Simons,
Director, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 2011-30561 Filed 11-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


ERCOT - New NGCC Builds

ERCOT,New NGCC Builds,Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing)

West - New NGCC Builds

West,New NGCC Builds,Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing)

US - New NGCC Builds

US,New NGCC Builds,Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (existing), Patchwork (E+N), Patchwork (existing)

East - Incremental Coal Retirements

East,Incremental Coal Retirements,Reference, No CPP (high gas), Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, high gas)

ERCOT - Incremental Coal Retirements

ERCOT,Incremental Coal Retirements,Reference, No CPP (high gas), Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, high gas)

West - Incremental Coal Retirements

West,Incremental Coal Retirements,Reference, No CPP (high gas), Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, high gas)

US - Incremental Coal Retirements

US,Incremental Coal Retirements,Reference, No CPP (high gas), Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, high gas)

<li class="filterall filter-incremental-coal-retirements filter-reference-no-cpp-ee-dual-rate-ee-mass-en-ee-mass-existing-ee-incremental-coal-retirements filter-east eg-grant-wrapper eg-post-id-35869 tp-esg-item esg-hovered itemtoshow loadedmedia isvisiblenow" data-date="1471356198" style="opacity: 1; visibility: inherit; transform: matrix3d(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 0.999917); height: auto; width: 287px; display: block; top: 17740px; left: 634px; transform-origin: center center 0px;">

East - Incremental Coal Retirements

East,Incremental Coal Retirements,Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

<li class="filterall filter-incremental-coal-retirements filter-reference-no-cpp-ee-dual-rate-ee-mass-en-ee-mass-existing-ee-incremental-coal-retirements filter-ercot eg-grant-wrapper eg-post-id-35870 tp-esg-item esg-hovered itemtoshow loadedmedia isvisiblenow" data-date="1471356203" style="opacity: 1; visibility: inherit; transform: matrix3d(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 0.999917); height: auto; width: 287px; display: block; top: 18163px; left: 0px; transform-origin: center center 0px;">

ERCOT - Incremental Coal Retirements

ERCOT,Incremental Coal Retirements,Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

<li class="filterall filter-incremental-coal-retirements filter-reference-no-cpp-ee-dual-rate-ee-mass-en-ee-mass-existing-ee-incremental-coal-retirements filter-west eg-grant-wrapper eg-post-id-35871 tp-esg-item esg-hovered itemtoshow loadedmedia isvisiblenow" data-date="1471356212" style="opacity: 1; visibility: inherit; transform: matrix3d(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 0.999917); height: auto; width: 287px; display: block; top: 18183px; left: 317px; transform-origin: center center 0px;">

West - Incremental Coal Retirements

West,Incremental Coal Retirements,Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

<li class="filterall filter-incremental-coal-retirements filter-reference-no-cpp-ee-dual-rate-ee-mass-en-ee-mass-existing-ee-incremental-coal-retirements filter-us eg-grant-wrapper eg-post-id-35872 tp-esg-item esg-hovered itemtoshow loadedmedia isvisiblenow" data-date="1471356206" style="opacity: 1; visibility: inherit; transform: matrix3d(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 0.999917); height: auto; width: 287px; display: block; top: 18183px; left: 634px; transform-origin: center center 0px;">

US - Incremental Coal Retirements

US,Incremental Coal Retirements,Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

East - Incremental Coal Retirements

East,Incremental Coal Retirements,Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, Banking), Mass (E+N, High Gas Price), Mass (existing)

ERCOT - Incremental Coal Retirements

ERCOT,Incremental Coal Retirements,Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, Banking), Mass (E+N, High Gas Price), Mass (existing)

West - Incremental Coal Retirements

West,Incremental Coal Retirements,Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, Banking), Mass (E+N, High Gas Price), Mass (existing)

US - Incremental Coal Retirements

US,Incremental Coal Retirements,Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, Banking), Mass (E+N, High Gas Price), Mass (existing)

<li class="filterall filter-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-reference-no-cpp-ee-dual-rate-ee-mass-en-ee-mass-existing-ee-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-east eg-grant-wrapper eg-post-id-35877 tp-esg-item esg-hovered itemtoshow loadedmedia isvisiblenow" data-date="1471356198" style="opacity: 1; visibility: inherit; transform: matrix3d(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 0.999917); height: auto; width: 287px; display: block; top: 19091px; left: 317px; transform-origin: center center 0px;">

East - Incremental Nuclear Retirements

East,Incremental Nuclear Retirements,Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

<li class="filterall filter-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-reference-no-cpp-ee-dual-rate-ee-mass-en-ee-mass-existing-ee-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-ercot eg-grant-wrapper eg-post-id-35878 tp-esg-item esg-hovered itemtoshow loadedmedia isvisiblenow" data-date="1471356200" style="opacity: 1; visibility: inherit; transform: matrix3d(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 0.999917); height: auto; width: 287px; display: block; top: 19091px; left: 634px; transform-origin: center center 0px;">

ERCOT - Incremental Nuclear Retirements

ERCOT,Incremental Nuclear Retirements,Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

<li class="filterall filter-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-reference-no-cpp-ee-dual-rate-ee-mass-en-ee-mass-existing-ee-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-west eg-grant-wrapper eg-post-id-35879 tp-esg-item esg-hovered itemtoshow loadedmedia isvisiblenow" data-date="1471356212" style="opacity: 1; visibility: inherit; transform: matrix3d(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 0.999917); height: auto; width: 287px; display: block; top: 19514px; left: 0px; transform-origin: center center 0px;">

West - Incremental Nuclear Retirements

West,Incremental Nuclear Retirements,Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

<li class="filterall filter-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-reference-no-cpp-ee-dual-rate-ee-mass-en-ee-mass-existing-ee-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-us eg-grant-wrapper eg-post-id-35880 tp-esg-item esg-hovered itemtoshow loadedmedia isvisiblenow" data-date="1471356206" style="opacity: 1; visibility: inherit; transform: matrix3d(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 0.999917); height: auto; width: 287px; display: block; top: 19534px; left: 317px; transform-origin: center center 0px;">

US - Incremental Nuclear Retirements

US,Incremental Nuclear Retirements,Reference, No CPP (EE), Dual Rate (EE), Mass (E+N, EE), Mass (existing, EE)

<li class="filterall filter-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-reference-dual-rate-mass-en-mass-en-banking-mass-en-high-gas-price-mass-existing-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-east eg-grant-wrapper eg-post-id-35881 tp-esg-item esg-hovered itemtoshow loadedmedia isvisiblenow" data-date="1471356198" style="opacity: 1; visibility: inherit; transform: matrix3d(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 0.999917); height: auto; width: 287px; display: block; top: 19534px; left: 634px; transform-origin: center center 0px;">

East - Incremental Nuclear Retirements

East,Incremental Nuclear Retirements,Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, Banking), Mass (E+N, High Gas Price), Mass (existing)

<li class="filterall filter-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-reference-dual-rate-mass-en-mass-en-banking-mass-en-high-gas-price-mass-existing-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-ercot eg-grant-wrapper eg-post-id-35882 tp-esg-item esg-hovered itemtoshow loadedmedia isvisiblenow" data-date="1471356200" style="opacity: 1; visibility: inherit; transform: matrix3d(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 0.999917); height: auto; width: 287px; display: block; top: 19957px; left: 0px; transform-origin: center center 0px;">

ERCOT - Incremental Nuclear Retirements

ERCOT,Incremental Nuclear Retirements,Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, Banking), Mass (E+N, High Gas Price), Mass (existing)

<li class="filterall filter-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-reference-dual-rate-mass-en-mass-en-banking-mass-en-high-gas-price-mass-existing-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-west eg-grant-wrapper eg-post-id-35883 tp-esg-item esg-hovered itemtoshow loadedmedia isvisiblenow" data-date="1471356212" style="opacity: 1; visibility: inherit; transform: matrix3d(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 0.999917); height: auto; width: 287px; display: block; top: 19977px; left: 317px; transform-origin: center center 0px;">

West - Incremental Nuclear Retirements

West,Incremental Nuclear Retirements,Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, Banking), Mass (E+N, High Gas Price), Mass (existing)

<li class="filterall filter-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-reference-dual-rate-mass-en-mass-en-banking-mass-en-high-gas-price-mass-existing-incremental-nuclear-retirements filter-us eg-grant-wrapper eg-post-id-35884 tp-esg-item esg-hovered itemtoshow loadedmedia isvisiblenow" data-date="1471356206" style="opacity: 1; visibility: inherit; transform: matrix3d(1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0.1, 0.999917); height: auto; width: 287px; display: block; top: 19999px; left: 634px; transform-origin: center center 0px;">

US - Incremental Nuclear Retirements

US,Incremental Nuclear Retirements,Reference, Dual Rate, Mass (E+N), Mass (E+N, Banking), Mass (E+N, High Gas Price), Mass (existing)

Issue Areas

Economy

Energy

Finance

Governance

Health

Housing

Immigration

National Security

About BPC

Who We Are

Magazine

Leadership

Experts

Staff

Careers

Internships

Privacy Policy

Research

Reports

Blog

Data and Resources

Infographics

Letters and Testimony

Special Initiatives

American Energy Innovation Council

CEO Council on Health and Innovation

Executive Council on Infrastructure

Contact

Media Center

Subscribe

Contact Us

Support Us

Bipartisan Policy Center   |   1225 Eye Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20005   |   <a href="mailto:bipartisaninfo<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
202-204-2400 (main)<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax)   |   Copyright 2016    |   All rights reserved. Privacy Policy


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 23 (Thursday, February 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 6129]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2352]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2735-000]

Censtar Energy Corp.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

January 27, 2011.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
Censtar Energy Corp.'s application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 16, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2352 Filed 2-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56132-56136]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19681]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-95688; File No. SR-MEMX-2022-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Exchange's Fee Schedule

September 7, 2022.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 31, 2022, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' or the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members \3\ (the
``Fee Schedule'') pursuant to Exchange Rules 15.1(a) and (c). The
Exchange proposes to implement the changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant
to this proposal on September 1, 2022. The text of the proposed rule
change is provided in Exhibit 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Fee
Schedule to: (i) adopt a reduced fee for executions of Pegged Orders
\4\ with a Midpoint Peg \5\ instruction (such orders, ``Midpoint Peg
Orders'') and a time-in-force (``TIF'') instruction of IOC \6\ or FOK
\7\ that execute at the midpoint of the national best bid and offer
(``NBBO''); (ii) modify the required criteria under Liquidity Provision
Tiers 1 and 2; and (iii) allow affiliated Members to aggregate their
quoting activity for purposes of the Exchange's Displayed Liquidity
Incentive (``DLI'') Tiers with prior notice to the Exchange, each as
further described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(h).
    \5\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(h)(2).
    \6\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(o)(1).
    \7\ See Exchange Rule 11.6(o)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the
Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a
number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to
which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on
publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange
currently has more than approximately 15.5% of the total market share
of executed volume of equities trading.\8\ Thus, in such a low-
concentrated and highly competitive market, no single equities exchange
possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow, and
the Exchange currently represents approximately 3% of the overall
market share.\9\ The Exchange in particular operates a ``Maker-Taker''
model whereby it provides rebates to Members that add liquidity to the
Exchange and charges fees to Members that remove liquidity from the
Exchange. The Fee Schedule sets forth the standard rebates and fees
applied per share for orders that add and remove liquidity,
respectively. Additionally, in response to the competitive environment,
the Exchange also offers tiered pricing, which provides Members with
opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or lower fees where certain
volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an
incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels,
which provides increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying
increasingly more stringent criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Market share percentage calculated as of August 30, 2022.
The Exchange receives and processes data made available through
consolidated data feeds (i.e., CTS and UTDF).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK Orders
    The Exchange currently charges a standard fee of $0.0030 per share
for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per
share that remove liquidity from the Exchange (such orders, ``Removed
Volume''). The Exchange now proposes to adopt a reduced fee of $0.0026
per share for executions of Midpoint Peg Orders in securities priced at
or above $1.00 per share with a TIF instruction of IOC or FOK that
execute at the midpoint of the NBBO and remove liquidity from the
Exchange upon entry \10\ (such orders, ``Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK
Orders'').\11\ As proposed, executions of Midpoint Peg Orders in
securities priced below $1.00 per share with a TIF instruction of IOC
or FOK that execute at the midpoint of the NBBO and remove liquidity
from the Exchange upon entry in will be charged a fee of 0.25% of the
total dollar value of the transaction, which is the same fee that is
currently charged for all such executions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that all Midpoint Peg Orders with a TIF
instruction of IOC or FOK, if executed on the Exchange, would remove
liquidity from the Exchange upon entry, as orders with a TIF
instruction of IOC or FOK do not post on the MEMX Book. The Exchange
further notes that a Midpoint Peg Order with a TIF instruction of
IOC may be eligible for routing away pursuant to Exchange Rule
11.11, and that if any such order is routed to and executed at an
away market it would be charged the current standard fee of $0.0030
per share for orders that are routed to, and remove liquidity from,
another market. See Exchange Rules 11.6(o)(1) and 11.6(o)(3).
    \11\ The proposed pricing for executions of Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK
Orders is referred to by the Exchange on the Fee Schedule under the
new description ``Removed volume from MEMX Book, Midpoint Peg (IOC/
FOK)'' and such orders will receive a Fee Code of ``Rm'' assigned by
the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of reducing the fee for executions of Midpoint Peg IOC/
FOK Orders is to incentivize Members to submit additional liquidity-
removing orders designed to execute at the midpoint upon entry (i.e.,
in the form of Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK Orders) to the Exchange, as the
cost of such executions would be lower than it is today. In turn, the
Exchange believes the submission of additional Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK
Orders would encourage firms that post liquidity at the midpoint to
submit additional liquidity-providing orders designed to execute at the
midpoint to

the Exchange, as such orders would have a greater chance of being
executed as a result of additional contra-side liquidity-removing
Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK Orders to interact with. Thus, the Exchange's
proposal to reduce the fee for executions of Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK
Orders is designed to deepen liquidity and increase execution
opportunities at the midpoint on the Exchange, thereby improving the
Exchange's market quality to the benefit of all Members and enhancing
its attractiveness as a trading venue.
Liquidity Provision Tiers 1 and 2
    The Exchange currently provides a standard rebate of $0.0020 per
share for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00
per share that add displayed liquidity to the Exchange (such orders,
``Added Displayed Volume''). The Exchange also currently offers the
Liquidity Provision Tiers under which a Member may receive an enhanced
rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume by achieving the
corresponding required volume criteria for each tier. The Exchange now
proposes to modify the required criteria under Liquidity Provision
Tiers 1 and 2, as further described below, but the Exchange does not
propose to change the rebates provided under such tiers.
    With respect to Liquidity Provision Tier 1, a Member currently
qualifies for such tier by achieving: (1) a Displayed ADAV \12\ that is
equal to or greater than 0.40% of the TCV; \13\ or (2) a Remove ADV
\14\ that is equal to or greater than 0.25% of the TCV and a Step-Up
ADAV \15\ from June 2022 that is equal to or greater than 0.05% of the
TCV. Now, the Exchange proposes to modify the required criteria under
such tier such that a Member would now qualify for Liquidity Provision
Tier 1 by achieving: (1) a Displayed ADAV that is equal to or greater
than 0.40% of the TCV; or (2) a Remove ADV that is equal to or greater
than 0.20% of the TCV and a Step-Up ADAV from June 2022 that is equal
to or greater than 0.05% of the TCV. Thus, such proposed change would
lower the Remove ADV threshold in one of the two alternative criteria
under such tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``ADAV'' means the
average daily added volume calculated as the number of shares added
per day, which is calculated on a monthly basis, and ``Displayed
ADAV'' means ADAV with respect to displayed orders.
    \13\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``TCV'' means total
consolidated volume calculated as the volume reported by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a consolidated
transaction reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply.
    \14\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``ADV'' means average
daily volume calculated as the number of shares added or removed,
combined, per day, which is calculated on a monthly basis, and the
term ``Remove ADV'' means ADV with respect to orders that remove
liquidity.
    \15\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``Step-Up ADAV'' means
ADV in the relevant baseline month subtracted from current ADAV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to Liquidity Provision Tier 2, a Member currently
qualifies for such tier by achieving an ADAV \16\ that is equal to or
greater than 0.25% of the TCV.\17\ Now, the Exchange proposes to modify
the required criteria under such tier such that a Member would now
qualify for Liquidity Provision Tier 2 by achieving an ADAV that is
equal to or greater than 0.20% of the TCV. Thus, such proposed change
would lower the ADAV threshold under such tier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``ADAV'' means the
average daily added volume calculated as the number of shares added
per day, which is calculated on a monthly basis.
    \17\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``TCV'' means total
consolidated volume calculated as the volume reported by all
exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a consolidated
transaction reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that lowering the Remove ADV threshold under
Liquidity Provision Tier 1 and the ADAV threshold under Liquidity
Provision Tier 2, as proposed, would make such tiers easier for Members
to achieve, and, in turn, while the Exchange has no way of predicting
with certainty how the proposed new criteria will impact Member
activity, the Exchange anticipates that more Members will strive to
qualify for such tiers than currently do, resulting in the submission
of additional order flow to the Exchange.
Aggregation of Affiliated Members' DLI Quoting Activity
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to add a note to the Fee Schedule to
allow affiliated Members to aggregate the quoting activity of such
affiliated Members' MPIDs for purposes of DLI Tier qualification if
such Members provide prior notice to the Exchange. As proposed, to the
extent that two or more affiliated companies maintain separate
memberships with the Exchange and can demonstrate their affiliation by
showing they control, are controlled by, or are under common control
with each other, the Exchange would permit such Members to aggregate
the quoting activity (but not the NBBO Time \18\) of such affiliated
Members' MPIDs in a manner that is consistent with the DLI Tier
calculation methodologies currently set forth on the Fee Schedule.\19\
More specifically, the Exchange would use the same calculation
methodologies currently applicable to the aggregation of the quoting
activity (but not the NBBO Time) of multiple MPIDs of one Member to
aggregate the quoting activity (but not the NBBO Time) of all MPIDs
associated with the affiliated Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ As set forth on the Fee Schedule, ``NBBO Time'' means the
aggregate of the percentage of time during regular trading hours
during which one of a Member's MPIDs has a displayed order of at
least one round lot at the national best bid or the national best
offer.
    \19\ See the Exchange's Fee Schedule (available at https://info.memxtrading.com/fee-schedule/) and the Exchange's initial
proposal to adopt the DLI (Securities Exchange Act Release No. 92150
(June 10, 2021), 86 FR 32090 (June 16, 2021) (SR-MEMX-2021-07)) for
additional details regarding the Exchange's calculation
methodologies for the DLI Tiers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, the Exchange will verify such affiliation using a
Member's Form BD, which lists control affiliates. The purpose of this
proposed change is to avoid disparate treatment of firms that have
divided their various business activities between separate corporate
entities as compared to firms that operate those business activities
within a single corporate entity, as allowing affiliated Member firms
to count their aggregate quoting activity as proposed would produce the
same result for purposes of the Exchange's DLI Tier pricing as if such
affiliated Member firms were instead organized as a single corporate
entity. The Exchange notes that the proposed aggregation of affiliated
Member firms' quoting activity for purposes of DLI Tier qualification,
as described above, is consistent with the current practice of the
Exchange and other exchanges with respect to the aggregation of
affiliated Member firms' volumes for purposes of ADAV and ADV
calculations with respect to pricing tiers.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., the Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. equities trading
fee schedule on its public website (available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\21\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\22\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities
and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented
and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be

excessive or incentives to be insufficient, and the Exchange represents
only a small percentage of the overall market. 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, 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.'' \23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the
exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can
shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of
products, in response to new or different pricing structures being
introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain
the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants
can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at
those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the
proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure
designed to incentivize market participants to direct additional order
flow, including liquidity-adding and liquidity-removing orders designed
to execute at the midpoint, to the Exchange, which the Exchange
believes would enhance liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to
the benefit of all Members.
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to charge a reduced fee for
executions of Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK Orders is reasonable, equitable, and
not unfairly discriminatory. Specifically, the Exchange believes such
proposal is reasonable, as it is reasonably designed to incentivize
Members to submit additional Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK Orders to the
Exchange, which, in turn, the Exchange believes would encourage firms
that post midpoint liquidity to submit additional liquidity-adding
orders designed to execute at the midpoint to the Exchange in order to
interact with such Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK Orders, as described above.
Thus, the Exchange believes the proposal reflects a reasonable attempt
to deepen liquidity and increase execution opportunities at the
midpoint on the Exchange, thereby improving the Exchange's market
quality to the benefit of all Members and enhancing its attractiveness
as a trading venue, particularly as the Exchange believes the proposed
reduction in the fee for executions of Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK Orders
(i.e., $0.0004 per share lower than the standard fee for Removed
Volume) is not excessive and is instead reasonably related to the
market quality benefits it is intended to achieve. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed fee for executions of Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK
Orders is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as such fee would
be charged uniformly to all executions of such orders for all Members.
    With respect to Liquidity Provision Tiers 1 and 2, the Exchange
notes that volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely
adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they are open to all
members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts
that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market
quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as
higher levels of liquidity provision and/or growth patterns, and the
introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume
discovery process. The Exchange believes that Liquidity Provision Tiers
1 and 2, as modified by the proposed changes to the required criteria
under such tiers, are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for these same reasons, as such tiers would continue to
provide Members with incremental incentives to achieve certain volume
thresholds on the Exchange, are available to all Members on an equal
basis, and, as described above, are designed to encourage Members to
increase their order flow to the Exchange in order to qualify for the
corresponding enhanced rebate for executions of Added Displayed Volume,
thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit
of all Members. The Exchange also believes that the proposed changes to
the required criteria under Liquidity Provision Tiers 1 and 2 reflect a
reasonable and equitable allocation of fees and rebates, as the
Exchange believes the enhanced rebate for executions of Added Displayed
Volume under each such tier remains commensurate with the corresponding
required criteria under the applicable tier and reasonably related to
the market quality benefits the applicable tier is designed to achieve.
    Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange
venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether these proposed
changes would definitely result in any Members qualifying for the
proposed Liquidity Provision Tiers 1 and 2. While the Exchange has no
way of predicting with certainty how the proposed changes will impact
Member activity, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes to
lower the Remove ADV threshold and the ADAV threshold under Liquidity
Provision Tiers 1 and 2, respectively, would make such tiers easier to
achieve, and the Exchange anticipates that more Members will strive to
qualify for such tiers than currently do, resulting in the submission
of additional order flow to the Exchange.
    As described above, the proposed language on the Fee Schedule
permitting aggregation of quoting activity (but not NBBO Time) amongst
affiliated Members for purposes of DLI Tier qualification is intended
to avoid disparate treatment of firms that have divided their various
business activities between separate corporate entities as compared to
firms that operate those business activities within a single corporate
entity, as allowing affiliated Member firms to count their aggregate
quoting activity in determining DLI Tier qualification would produce
the same result for purposes of the Exchange's DLI Tier pricing as if
such affiliated Member firms were instead organized as a single
corporate entity. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that its proposed
policy is fair and equitable, and not unreasonably discriminatory. In
addition to ensuring fair and equal treatment of its Members, the
Exchange does not want to create incentives for its Members to
restructure their business operations or compliance functions simply
due to the Exchange's pricing structure. Moreover, as noted above, this
proposed policy is consistent with the practice of the Exchange and
other exchanges with respect to the aggregation of affiliated Members'
volumes for purposes of determining ADAV and ADV with respect to
pricing tiers, and therefore, it does not raise any new or novel issues
that have not previously been considered by the Commission.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See supra note 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the
proposal satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of
the Act \25\ in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other
persons using its facilities and is not designed to unfairly
discriminate

between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. As described more
fully below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on
competition, the Exchange believes that its transaction pricing is
subject to significant competitive forces, and that the proposed fees
and rebates described herein are appropriate to address such forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will result in any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above,
the proposal is intended to incentivize market participants to direct
additional order flow, including in the form of orders designed to
execute at the midpoint of the NBBO, to the Exchange, thereby enhancing
liquidity and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all
Members. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposal would enhance
its competitiveness as a market that attracts actionable orders,
thereby making it a more desirable destination venue for its customers.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal furthers the
Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition
among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of individual
stocks for all types of orders, large and small.'' \26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra note 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intramarket Competition
    As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would
incentivize Members to submit additional order flow, including
liquidity-adding and liquidity-removing orders designed to execute at
the midpoint, to the Exchange, thereby enhancing liquidity and market
quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all Members, as well as
enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which
the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market
participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater
liquidity benefits all Members by providing more trading opportunities
and encourages Members to send additional orders to the Exchange,
thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all
market participants. The opportunity to qualify for the proposed new
criteria under Liquidity Provision Tiers 1 and 2, and thus receive the
corresponding enhanced rebates for executions of Added Displayed
Volume, would continue to be available to all Members that meet the
associated volume requirements in any month. As described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed new required criteria under each
such tier are commensurate with the corresponding rebate under such
tier and are reasonably related to the enhanced liquidity and market
quality that such tier is designed to promote. Additionally, as noted
above, the ability for Members to aggregate quoting activity amongst
affiliated Member firms for purposes of the Exchange's determination of
DLI Tier qualification is designed to avoid disparate treatment of
firms that have divided their various business activities between
separate corporate entities as compared to firms that operate those
business activities within a single corporate entity and would apply
equally to all Members as does the Exchange's current practice with
respect to the aggregation of affiliated Members' volumes for purposes
of determining ADAV and ADV with respect to pricing tiers. For the
foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would not
impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Intermarket Competition
    As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive or incentives to be insufficient. Members have numerous
alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order
flow to, including 15 other equities exchanges and numerous alternative
trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no
single registered equities exchange currently has more than
approximately 15.5% of the total market share of executed volume of
equities trading. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly
competitive market, no single equities exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of order flow. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from
month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order
flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in
response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into
the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's
transaction fees and rebates, including with respect to executions of
Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK Orders and Added Displayed Volume, and market
participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchange
and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues
to be more favorable. As described above, the proposed changes
represent a competitive proposal through which the Exchange is seeking
to encourage additional order flow to the Exchange through a reduced
fee for executions of Midpoint Peg IOC/FOK Orders and modifications to
the required criteria under certain volume-based tiers, which have been
widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange. Additionally, as
discussed above, the proposed change to allow affiliated Members to
aggregate their quoting activity for purposes of the Exchange's
determination of DLI Tier qualification is consistent with the practice
of the Exchange and other exchanges with respect to the aggregation of
affiliated Member firms' volumes for purposes of ADAV and ADV
calculations with respect to pricing tiers. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes the proposal would not burden, but rather promote, intermarket
competition by enabling it to better compete with other exchanges that
offer similar pricing incentives to market participants and aggregation
of trading activity amongst affiliated firms with respect to pricing
incentives.
    Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically,
in Regulation NMS, 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.'' \27\ The fact
that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the
courts. In NetCoalition v. SEC, the D.C. Circuit stated as follows:
``[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'. . . .''.\28\
Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe its proposed pricing changes
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See supra note 23.
    \28\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525, 539 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
(quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59039 (December 2,
2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \29\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \30\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \30\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MEMX-2022-23 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-MEMX-2022-23. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MEMX-2022-23 and should be submitted on
or before October 4, 2022.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-19681 Filed 9-12-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 35787]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12619]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-D-0362]

Blood Pressure and Pulse Donor Eligibility Requirements:
Compliance Policy; Draft Guidance for Industry; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is correcting
a notice that appeared in the Federal Register of Tuesday, May 24,
2022. The document announced the availability of a draft guidance
entitled ``Blood Pressure and Pulse Donor Eligibility Requirements:
Compliance Policy; Draft Guidance for Industry.'' The draft guidance
document was published with incorrect information of a comment period
due date. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myrna Hanna, 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: In the Federal Register of May 24, 2022 (87
FR 31567), in FR Doc. 2022-11118, on page 31567, the following
correction is made:
    1. On page 3156, in the first column, the DATES caption is
corrected to read:

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by July 25, 2022, to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

    Dated: June 3, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-12619 Filed 6-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P