[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39651-39652]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14355]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-4563]

Modified Release Veterinary Parenteral Dosage Forms: Development,
Evaluation, and Establishment of Specifications; Guidance for Industry;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of guidance for industry #238 entitled ``Modified Release
Veterinary Parenteral Dosage Forms: Development, Evaluation, and
Establishment of Specifications.'' This guidance provides
recommendations on the submission of chemistry, manufacturing, and
controls and pharmacokinetic information, as well as procedures to
follow, to support the approval of modified release parenteral drug
products intended for use in veterinary species. This guidance is
applicable to both new animal drug applications and abbreviated new
animal drug application products.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2015-N-4563 for ``Modified Release Veterinary Parenteral Dosage
Forms: Development, Evaluation, and Establishment of Specifications.''
Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Hunter, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-142), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of January 19, 2016 (81 FR 2874), FDA
published the notice of availability for a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Modified Release Veterinary Parenteral Dosage Forms:
Development, Evaluation, and Establishment of Specifications,'' giving
interested persons until March 21, 2016, to comment on the draft, and
those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. The
guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated
January 2016.

II. Significance of Guidance

    This level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents
the current thinking of FDA on ``Modified Release Veterinary Parenteral
Dosage Forms: Development, Evaluation, and Establishment of
Specifications.'' It does not establish any rights for any person and
is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative
approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0032; the collections of information in section
512(n)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360k) have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0669.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: June 13, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-14355 Filed 6-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: February 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 7282-7283]
[DOCID:fr18fe10-44]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0001]

Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Circulatory System Devices Panel of the Medical
Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 18 and 19, 2010,
from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Location: College Park Holiday Inn, Grand Ballroom, 10000 Baltimore
Ave., College Park, MD.
    Contact Person: James Swink, Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver
Spring, MD

20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory
Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the
Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call the Information Line
for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice in the Federal
Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously
announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly
enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the
agency's Web site and call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/
phone line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the
meeting.
    Agenda: On March 18, 2010, the committee will discuss, make
recommendations, and vote on the premarket approval application (PMA)
for the Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Defibrillators (CRT-Ds)
sponsored by Boston Scientific. The sponsor is seeking expanded
indications for the their CRT-Ds to include patients with low left
ventricular ejection fraction (<=30%) and wide QRS (>=130 ms) who are
NYHA Class II (ischemic or non-ischemic etiology) or NYHA Class I
(ischemic etiology).
    On March 19, 2010, the committee will discuss, make recommendations
and vote on a PMA for the REVO MRI Pacemaker System sponsored by
Medtronic. The REVO MRI Pacing System is a pacemaker (with a standard
pacing indication) that has been specifically designed to be safe for
the MRI environment under certain MR scanning conditions.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/
default.htm, scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
March 11, 2010. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
immediately following lunch. Those desiring to make formal oral
presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before March 3, 2010. Time allotted for each presentation may be
limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by March 4,
2010.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams at
301-796-5966 at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/
AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 4, 2010.
Jill Hartzler Warner,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Special Medical Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010-3032 Filed 2-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 71596]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25555]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF23-2-000]

Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on November 10, 2022, Western Area Power
Administration submits tariff filing per 300.10: UGP_PSMBP-ED_WAPA203-
20220621 to be effective 1/1/2023.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://ferc.gov) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 12, 2022.

    Dated: November 15, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-25555 Filed 11-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Equity Execution Venues, that a fifth tier was unnecessary to address
the range of market shares of the Equity Execution Venues.
    By increasing the number of tiers for Equity Execution Venues and
reducing the proposed CAT Fees for the smaller Equity Execution Venues,
the Operating Committee believes that the proposed fees for Equity
Execution Venues would not impose an undue or inappropriate burden on
competition under Section 6 or Section 15A of the Exchange Act.
Moreover, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed fees
appropriately take into account the distinctions in the securities
trading operations of different Equity Execution Venues, as required
under the funding principles of the CAT NMS Plan.\67\ The larger number
of tiers more closely tracks the variety of sizes of equity share
volume of Equity Execution Venues. In addition, the reduction in the
fees for the smaller Equity Execution Venues recognizes the potential
burden of larger fees on smaller entities. In particular, the very
small quarterly fee of $129 for Tier 4 Equity Execution Venues reflects
the fact that certain Equity Execution Venues have a very small share
volume due to their typically more focused business models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, with this Amendment, the Exchange proposes to amend
paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed fee schedule to add the two additional
tiers for Equity Execution Venues, to establish the percentages and
fees for Tiers 3 and 4 as described, and to revise the percentages and
fees for Tiers 1 and 2 as described.
(ii) Execution Venues for OTC Equity Securities
    In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee proposed to group
Execution Venues for OTC Equity Securities and Execution Venues for NMS
Stocks in the same tier structure. The Commission and commenters raised
concerns as to whether this determination to place Execution Venues for
OTC Equity Securities in the same tier structure as Execution Venues
for NMS Stocks would result in an undue or inappropriate burden on
competition, recognizing that the application of share volume may lead
to different outcomes as applied to OTC Equity Securities and NMS
Stocks.\68\ To address this concern, the Operating Committee proposes
to discount the OTC Equity Securities market share of Execution Venue
ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities as well as the market share of the
FINRA ORF by the average shares per trade ratio between NMS Stocks and
OTC Equity Securities (0.17% for the second quarter of 2017) in order
to adjust for the greater number of shares being traded in the OTC
Equity Securities market, which is generally a function of a lower per
share price for OTC Equity Securities when compared to NMS Stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See Suspension Order at 31664-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As commenters noted, many OTC Equity Securities are priced at less
than one dollar--and a significant number at

less than one penny--and low-priced shares tend to trade in larger
quantities. Accordingly, a disproportionately large number of shares
are involved in transactions involving OTC Equity Securities versus NMS
Stocks, which has the effect of overstating an Execution Venue's true
market share when the Execution Venue is involved in the trading of OTC
Equity Securities. Because the proposed fee tiers are based on market
share calculated by share volume, Execution Venue ATSs trading OTC
Equity Securities and FINRA may be subject to higher tiers than their
operations may warrant.\69\ The Operating Committee proposes to address
this concern in two ways. First, the Operating Committee proposes to
increase the number of Equity Execution Venue tiers, as discussed
above. Second, the Operating Committee determined to discount the OTC
Equity Securities market share of Execution Venue ATSs trading OTC
Equity Securities as well as the market share of the FINRA ORF when
calculating their tier placement. Because the disparity in share volume
between Execution Venues trading in OTC Equity Securities and NMS
Stocks is based on the different number of shares per trade for OTC
Equity Securities and NMS Stocks, the Operating Committee believes that
discounting the OTC Equity Securities share volume of such Execution
Venue ATSs as well as the market share of the FINRA ORF would address
the difference in shares per trade for OTC Equity Securities and NMS
Stocks. Specifically, the Operating Committee proposes to impose a
discount based on the objective measure of the average shares per trade
ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities. Based on available
data from the second quarter of 2017, the average shares per trade
ratio between NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities is 0.17%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ Suspension Order at 31664-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The practical effect of applying such a discount for trading in OTC
Equity Securities is to shift Execution Venue ATSs trading OTC Equity
Securities to tiers for smaller Execution Venues and with lower fees.
For example, under the Original Proposal, one Execution Venue ATS
trading OTC Equity Securities was placed in the first CAT Fee tier,
which had a quarterly fee of $63,375. With the imposition of the
proposed tier changes and the discount, this ATS would be ranked in
Tier 3 and would owe a quarterly fee of $21,126.
    In developing the proposed discount for Equity Execution Venue ATSs
trading OTC Equity Securities and FINRA, the Operating Committee
evaluated different alternatives to address the concerns related to OTC
Equity Securities, including creating a separate tier structure for
Execution Venues trading OTC Equity Securities (like the separate tier
for Options Execution Venues) as well as the proposed discounting
method for Execution Venue ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities and
FINRA. For these alternatives, the Operating Committee considered how
each alternative would affect the recovery allocations. In addition,
each of these options was considered in the context of the full model,
as changes in each variable in the model affect other variables in the
model when allocating the total CAT costs among CAT Reporters. The
Operating Committee did not adopt a separate tier structure for Equity
Execution Venues trading OTC Equity Securities as they determined that
the proposed discount approach appropriately addresses the concern. The
Operating Committee determined to adopt the proposed discount because
it directly relates to the concern regarding the trading patterns and
operations in the OTC Equity Securities markets, and is an objective
discounting method.
    By increasing the number of tiers for Equity Execution Venues and
imposing a discount on the market share of share volume calculation for
trading in OTC Equity Securities, the Operating Committee believes that
the proposed fees for Equity Execution Venues would not impose an undue
or inappropriate burden on competition under Section 6 or Section 15A
of the Exchange Act. Moreover, the Operating Committee believes that
the proposed fees appropriately take into account the distinctions in
the securities trading operations of different Equity Execution Venues,
as required under the funding principles of the CAT NMS Plan.\70\ As
discussed above, the larger number of tiers more closely tracks the
variety of sizes of equity share volume of Equity Execution Venues. In
addition, the proposed discount recognizes the different types of
trading operations at Equity Execution Venues trading OTC Equity
Securities versus those trading NMS Stocks, thereby more closing
matching the relative revenue generation by Equity Execution Venues
trading OTC Equity Securities to their CAT Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, with this Amendment, the Exchange proposes to amend
paragraph (b)(2) of the proposed fee schedule to indicate that the OTC
Equity Securities market share for Equity ATSs trading OTC Equity
Securities as well as the market share of the FINRA ORF would be
discounted. In addition, as discussed above, to address concerns
related to smaller ATSs, including those that trade OTC Equity
Securities, the Exchange proposes to amend paragraph (b)(2) of the
proposed fee schedule to add two additional tiers for Equity Execution
Venues, to establish the percentages and fees for Tiers 3 and 4 as
described, and to revise the percentages and fees for Tiers 1 and 2 as
described.
(B) Market Makers
    In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee proposed to
include both Options Market Maker quotes and equities market maker
quotes in the calculation of total message traffic for such market
makers for purposes of tiering for Industry Members (other than
Execution Venue ATSs). The Commission and commenters raised questions
as to whether the proposed treatment of Options Market Maker quotes may
result in an undue or inappropriate burden on competition or may lead
to a reduction in market quality.\71\ To address this concern, the
Operating Committee determined to discount the Options Market Maker
quotes by the trade to quote ratio for options when calculating message
traffic for Options Market Makers. Similarly, to avoid disincentives to
quoting behavior on the equities side as well, the Operating Committee
determined to discount equity market maker quotes by the trade to quote
ratio for equities when calculating message traffic for equities market
makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Suspension Order at 31663-4; SIFMA Letter at 4-6; FIA
Principal Traders Group Letter at 3; Sidley Letter at 2-6; Group One
Letter at 2-6; and Belvedere Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Original Proposal, market maker quotes were treated the same
as other message traffic for purposes of tiering for Industry Members
(other than Execution Venue ATSs). Commenters noted, however, that
charging Industry Members on the basis of message traffic will impact
market makers disproportionately because of their continuous quoting
obligations. Moreover, in the context of options market makers, message
traffic would include bids and offers for every listed options strikes
and series, which are not an issue for equities.\72\ The Operating
Committee proposes to address this concern in two ways. First, the
Operating Committee proposes to discount Options Market Maker quotes
when calculating the Options Market Makers' tier placement.
Specifically, the

Operating Committee proposes to impose a discount based on the
objective measure of the trade to quote ratio for options. Based on
available data from June 2016 through June 2017, the trade to quote
ratio for options is 0.01%. Second, the Operating Committee proposes to
discount equities market maker quotes when calculating the equities
market makers' tier placement. Specifically, the Operating Committee
proposes to impose a discount based on the objective measure of the
trade to quote ratio for equities. Based on available data for June
2016 through June 2017, this trade to quote ratio for equities is
5.43%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Suspension Order at 31664.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The practical effect of applying such discounts for quoting
activity is to shift market makers' calculated message traffic lower,
leading to the potential shift to tiers for lower message traffic and
reduced fees. Such an approach would move sixteen Industry Member CAT
Reporters that are market makers to a lower tier than in the Original
Proposal. For example, under the Original Proposal, Broker-Dealer Firm
ABC was placed in the first CAT Fee tier, which had a quarterly fee of
$101,004. With the imposition of the proposed tier changes and the
discount, Broker-Dealer Firm ABC, an options market maker, would be
ranked in Tier 3 and would owe a quarterly fee of $40,899.
    In developing the proposed market maker discounts, the Operating
Committee considered various discounts for Options Market Makers and
equity market makers, including discounts of 50%, 25%, 0.00002%, as
well as the 5.43% for option market makers and 0.01% for equity market
makers. Each of these options were considered in the context of the
full model, as changes in each variable in the model affect other
variables in the model when allocating the total CAT costs among CAT
Reporters. The Operating Committee determined to adopt the proposed
discount because it directly relates to the concern regarding the
quoting requirement, is an objective discounting method, and has the
desired potential to shift market makers to lower fee tiers.
    By imposing a discount on Options Market Makers and equities market
makers' quoting traffic for the calculation of message traffic, the
Operating Committee believes that the proposed fees for market makers
would not impose an undue or inappropriate burden on competition under
Section 6 or Section 15A of the Exchange Act. Moreover, the Operating
Committee believes that the proposed fees appropriately take into
account the distinctions in the securities trading operations of
different Industry Members, and avoid disincentives, such as a
reduction in market quality, as required under the funding principles
of the CAT NMS Plan.\73\ The proposed discounts recognize the different
types of trading operations presented by Options Market Makers and
equities market makers, as well as the value of the market makers'
quoting activity to the market as a whole. Accordingly, the Operating
Committee believes that the proposed discounts will not impact the
ability of small Options Market Makers or equities market makers to
provide liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ Section 11.2(b) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, with this Amendment, the Exchange proposes to amend
paragraph (b)(1) of the proposed fee schedule to indicate that the
message traffic related to equity market maker quotes and Options
Market Maker quotes would be discounted. In addition, the Exchange
proposes to define the term ``Options Market Maker'' in paragraph
(a)(1) of the proposed fee schedule.
(C) Comparability/Allocation of Costs
    Under the Original Proposal, 75% of CAT costs were allocated to
Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) and 25% of CAT costs
were allocated to Execution Venues. This cost allocation sought to
maintain the greatest level of comparability across the funding model,
where comparability considered affiliations among or between CAT
Reporters. The Commission and commenters expressed concerns regarding
whether the proposed 75%/25% allocation of CAT costs is consistent with
the Plan's funding principles and the Exchange Act, including whether
the allocation places a burden on competition or reduces market
quality. The Commission and commenters also questioned whether the
approach of accounting for affiliations among CAT Reporters in setting
CAT Fees disadvantages non-affiliated CAT Reporters or otherwise
burdens competition in the market for trading services.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ See Suspension Order at 31662-3; SIFMA Letter at 3; Sidley
Letter at 6-7; Group One Letter at 2; and Belvedere Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these concerns, the Operating Committee determined
to revise the proposed funding model to focus the comparability of CAT
Fees on the individual entity level, rather than primarily on the
comparability of affiliated entities. In light of the interconnected
nature of the various aspects of the funding model, the Operating
Committee determined to revise various aspects of the model to enhance
comparability at the individual entity level. Specifically, to achieve
such comparability, the Operating Committee determined to (1) decrease
the number of tiers for Industry Members (other than Execution Venue
ATSs) from nine to seven; (2) change the allocation of CAT costs
between Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues from 75%/
25% to 67%/33%; and (3) adjust tier percentages and recovery
allocations for Equity Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues and
Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs). With these changes,
the proposed funding model provides fee comparability for the largest
individual entities, with the largest Industry Members (other than
Execution Venue ATSs), Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution
Venues each paying a CAT Fee of approximately $81,000 each quarter.
(i) Number of Industry Member Tiers
    In the Original Proposal, the proposed funding model had nine tiers
for Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs). The Operating
Committee determined that reducing the number of tiers from nine tiers
to seven tiers (and adjusting the predefined Industry Member
Percentages as well) continues to provide a fair allocation of fees
among Industry Members and appropriately distinguishes between Industry
Members with differing levels of message traffic. In reaching this
conclusion, the Operating Committee considered historical message
traffic generated by Industry Members across all exchanges and as
submitted to FINRA's OATS, and considered the distribution of firms
with similar levels of message traffic, grouping together firms with
similar levels of message traffic. Based on this, the Operating
Committee determined that seven tiers would group firms with similar
levels of message traffic, while also achieving greater comparability
in the model for the individual CAT Reporters with the greatest market
share or message traffic.
    In developing the proposed seven tier structure, the Operating
Committee considered remaining at nine tiers, as well as reducing the
number of tiers down to seven when considering how to address the
concerns raised regarding comparability. For each of the alternatives,
the Operating Committee considered the assignment of various
percentages of Industry Members to each tier as well as various
percentages

of Industry Member recovery allocations for each alternative. Each of
these options was considered in the context of its effects on the full
funding model, as changes in each variable in the model affect other
variables in the model when allocating the total CAT costs among CAT
Reporters. The Operating Committee determined that the seven tier
alternative provided the most fee comparability at the individual
entity level for the largest CAT Reporters, while both providing
logical breaks in tiering for Industry Members with different levels of
message traffic and a sufficient number of tiers to provide for the
full spectrum of different levels of message traffic for all Industry
Members.
(ii) Allocation of CAT Costs Between Equity and Options Execution
Venues
    The Operating Committee also determined to adjust the allocation of
CAT costs between Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues
to enhance comparability at the individual entity level. In the
Original Proposal, 75% of Execution Venue CAT costs were allocated to
Equity Execution Venues, and 25% of Execution Venue CAT costs were
allocated to Options Execution Venues. To achieve the goal of increased
comparability at the individual entity level, the Operating Committee
analyzed a range of alternative splits for revenue recovery between
Equity and Options Execution Venues, along with other changes in the
proposed funding model. Based on this analysis, the Operating Committee
determined to allocate 67 percent of Execution Venue costs recovered to
Equity Execution Venues and 33 percent to Options Execution Venues. The
Operating Committee determined that a 67/33 allocation between Equity
and Options Execution Venues enhances the level of fee comparability
for the largest CAT Reporters. Specifically, the largest Equity and
Options Execution Venues would pay a quarterly CAT Fee of approximately
$81,000.
    In developing the proposed allocation of CAT costs between Equity
and Options Execution Venues, the Operating Committee considered
various different options for such allocation, including keeping the
original 75%25% allocation, as well as shifting to a 70%/30%, 67%/33%,
or 57.75%/42.25% allocation. For each of the alternatives, the
Operating Committee considered the effect each allocation would have on
the assignment of various percentages of Equity Execution Venues to
each tier as well as various percentages of Equity Execution Venue
recovery allocations for each alternative. Moreover, each of these
options was considered in the context of the full model, as changes in
each variable in the model affect other variables in the model when
allocating the total CAT costs among CAT Reporters. The Operating
Committee determined that the 67%/33% allocation between Equity and
Options Execution Venues provided the greatest level of fee
comparability at the individual entity level for the largest CAT
Reporters, while still providing for appropriate fee levels across all
tiers for all CAT Reporters.
(iii) Allocation of Costs Between Execution Venues and Industry Members
    The Operating Committee determined to allocate 25% of CAT costs to
Execution Venues and 75% to Industry Members (other than Execution
Venue ATSs), as it had in the Original Proposal. The Operating
Committee determined that this 75%/25% allocation, along with the other
changes proposed above, led to the most comparable fees for the largest
Equity Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues and Industry Members
(other than Execution Venue ATSs). The largest Equity Execution Venues,
Options Execution Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution
Venue ATSs) would each pay a quarterly CAT Fee of approximately
$81,000.
    As a preliminary matter, the Operating Committee determined that it
is appropriate to allocate most of the costs to create, implement and
maintain the CAT to Industry Members for several reasons. First, there
are many more broker-dealers expected to report to the CAT than
Participants (i.e., 1,541 broker-dealer CAT Reporters versus 22
Participants). Second, since most of the costs to process CAT
reportable data is generated by Industry Members, Industry Members
could be expected to contribute toward such costs. Finally, as noted by
the SEC, the CAT ``substantially enhance[s] the ability of the SROs and
the Commission to oversee today's securities markets,'' \75\ thereby
benefitting all market participants. After making this determination,
the Operating Committee analyzed several different cost allocations, as
discussed further below, and determined that an allocation where 75% of
the CAT costs should be borne by the Industry Members (other than
Execution Venue ATSs) and 25% should be paid by Execution Venues was
most appropriate and led to the greatest comparability of CAT Fees for
the largest CAT Reporters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67457 (July 18, 2012),
77 FR 45722, 45726 (August 1, 2012) (``Rule 613 Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In developing the proposed allocation of CAT costs between
Execution Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue
ATSs), the Operating Committee considered various different options for
such allocation, including keeping the original 75%/25% allocation, as
well as shifting to an 80%/20%, 70%/30%, or 65%/35% allocation. Each of
these options was considered in the context of the full model,
including the effect on each of the changes discussed above, as changes
in each variable in the model affect other variables in the model when
allocating the total CAT costs among CAT Reporters. In particular, for
each of the alternatives, the Operating Committee considered the effect
each allocation had on the assignment of various percentages of Equity
Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues and Industry Members (other
than Execution Venue ATSs) to each relevant tier as well as various
percentages of recovery allocations for each tier. The Operating
Committee determined that the 75%/25% allocation between Execution
Venues and Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) provided
the greatest level of fee comparability at the individual entity level
for the largest CAT Reporters, while still providing for appropriate
fee levels across all tiers for all CAT Reporters.
(iv) Affiliations
    The funding principles set forth in Section 11.2 of the Plan
require that the fees charged to CAT Reporters with the most CAT-
related activity (measured by market share and/or message traffic, as
applicable) are generally comparable (where, for these comparability
purposes, the tiered fee structure takes into consideration
affiliations between or among CAT Reporters, whether Execution Venue
and/or Industry Members). The proposed funding model satisfies this
requirement. As discussed above, under the proposed funding model, the
largest Equity Execution Venues, Options Execution Venues, and Industry
Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) pay approximately the same
fee. Moreover, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed
funding model takes into consideration affiliations between or among
CAT Reporters as complexes with multiple CAT Reporters will pay the
appropriate fee based on the proposed fee schedule for each of the CAT
Reporters in the complex. For example, a complex with a Tier 1 Equity
Execution Venue and Tier 2 Industry Member will pay the

same as another complex with a Tier 1 Equity Execution Venue and Tier 2
Industry Member.
(v) Fee Schedule Changes
    Accordingly, with this Amendment, the Exchange proposes to amend
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of the proposed fee schedule to reflect the
changes discussed in this section. Specifically, the Exchange proposes
to amend paragraph (b)(1) and (2) of the proposed fee schedule to
update the number of tiers, and the fees and percentages assigned to
each tier to reflect the described changes.
(D) Market Share/Message Traffic
    In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee proposed to
charge Execution Venues based on market share and Industry Members
(other than Execution Venue ATSs) based on message traffic. Commenters
questioned the use of the two different metrics for calculating CAT
Fees.\76\ The Operating Committee continues to believe that the
proposed use of market share and message traffic satisfies the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the funding principles set forth
in the CAT NMS Plan. Accordingly, the proposed funding model continues
to charge Execution Venues based on market share and Industry Members
(other than Execution Venue ATSs) based on message traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Suspension Order at 31663; FIA Principal Traders Group
Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In drafting the Plan and the Original Proposal, the Operating
Committee expressed the view that the correlation between message
traffic and size does not apply to Execution Venues, which they
described as producing similar amounts of message traffic regardless of
size. The Operating Committee believed that charging Execution Venues
based on message traffic would result in both large and small Execution
Venues paying comparable fees, which would be inequitable, so the
Operating Committee determined that it would be more appropriate to
treat Execution Venues differently from Industry Members in the funding
model. Upon a more detailed analysis of available data, however, the
Operating Committee noted that Execution Venues have varying levels of
message traffic. Nevertheless, the Operating Committee continues to
believe that a bifurcated funding model--where Industry Members (other
than Execution Venue ATSs) are charged fees based on message traffic
and Execution Venues are charged based on market share--complies with
the Plan and meets the standards of the Exchange Act for the reasons
set forth below.
    Charging Industry Members based on message traffic is the most
equitable means for establishing fees for Industry Members (other than
Execution Venue ATSs). This approach will assess fees to Industry
Members that create larger volumes of message traffic that are
relatively higher than those fees charged to Industry Members that
create smaller volumes of message traffic. Since message traffic, along
with fixed costs of the Plan Processor, is a key component of the costs
of operating the CAT, message traffic is an appropriate criterion for
placing Industry Members in a particular fee tier.
    The Operating Committee also believes that it is appropriate to
charge Execution Venues CAT Fees based on their market share. In
contrast to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs), which
determine the degree to which they produce the message traffic that
constitutes CAT Reportable Events, the CAT Reportable Events of
Execution Venues are largely derivative of quotations and orders
received from Industry Members that the Execution Venues are required
to display. The business model for Execution Venues, however, is
focused on executions in their markets. As a result, the Operating
Committee believes that it is more equitable to charge Execution Venues
based on their market share rather than their message traffic.
    Similarly, focusing on message traffic would make it more difficult
to draw distinctions between large and small exchanges, including
options exchanges in particular. For instance, the Operating Committee
analyzed the message traffic of Execution Venues and Industry Members
for the period of April 2017 to June 2017 and placed all CAT Reporters
into a nine-tier framework (i.e., a single tier may include both
Execution Venues and Industry Members). The Operating Committee's
analysis found that the majority of exchanges (15 total) were grouped
in Tiers 1 and 2. Moreover, virtually all of the options exchanges were
in Tiers 1 and 2.\77\ Given the concentration of options exchanges in
Tiers 1 and 2, the Operating Committee believes that using a funding
model based purely on message traffic would make it more difficult to
distinguish between large and small options exchanges, as compared to
the proposed bifurcated fee approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ The Participants note that this analysis did not place MIAX
PEARL in Tier 1 or Tier 2 since the exchange commenced trading on
February 6, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Operating Committee also believes that it is
appropriate to treat ATSs as Execution Venues under the proposed
funding model since ATSs have business models that are similar to those
of exchanges, and ATSs also compete with exchanges. For these reasons,
the Operating Committee believes that charging Execution Venues based
on market share is more appropriate and equitable than charging
Execution Venues based on message traffic.
(E) Time Limit
    In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee did not impose
any time limit on the application of the proposed CAT Fees. As
discussed above, the Operating Committee developed the proposed funding
model by analyzing currently available historical data. Such historical
data, however, is not as comprehensive as data that will be submitted
to the CAT. Accordingly, the Operating Committee believes that it will
be appropriate to revisit the funding model once CAT Reporters have
actual experience with the funding model. Accordingly, the Operating
Committee proposes to include a sunsetting provision in the proposed
fee model. The proposed CAT Fees will sunset two years after the
operative date of the CAT NMS Plan amendment adopting CAT Fees for
Participants. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add paragraph (d)
of the proposed fee schedule to include this sunsetting provision. Such
a provision will provide the Operating Committee and other market
participants with the opportunity to reevaluate the performance of the
proposed funding model.
(F) Tier Structure/Decreasing Cost per Unit
    In the Original Proposal, the Operating Committee determined to use
a tiered fee structure. The Commission and commenters questioned
whether the decreasing cost per additional unit (of message traffic in
the case of Industry Members, or of share volume in the case of
Execution Venues) in the proposed fee schedules burdens competition by
disadvantaging small Industry Members and Execution Venues and/or by
creating barriers to entry in the market for trading services and/or
the market for broker-dealer services.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ Suspension Order at 31667.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Operating Committee does not believe that decreasing cost per

additional unit in the proposed fee schedules places an unfair
competitive burden on Small Industry Members and Execution Venues.
While the cost per unit of message traffic or share volume necessarily
will decrease as volume increases in any tiered fee model using fixed
fee percentages and, as a result, Small Industry Members and small
Execution Venues may pay a larger fee per message or share, this
comment fails to take account of the substantial differences in the
absolute fees paid by Small Industry Members and small Execution Venues
as opposed to large Industry Members and large Execution Venues. For
example, under the fee proposals, Tier 7 Industry Members would pay a
quarterly fee of $105, while Tier 1 Industry Members would pay a
quarterly fee of $81,483. Similarly, a Tier 4 Equity Execution Venue
would pay a quarterly fee of $129, while a Tier 1 Equity Execution
Venue would pay a quarterly fee of $81,048. Thus, Small Industry
Members and small Execution Venues are not disadvantaged in terms of
the total fees that they actually pay. In contrast to a tiered model
using fixed fee percentages, the Operating Committee believes that
strictly variable or metered funding models based on message traffic or
share volume would be more likely to affect market behavior and may
present administrative challenges (e.g., the costs to calculate and
monitor fees may exceed the fees charged to the smallest CAT
Reporters).
(G) Other Alternatives Considered
    In addition to the various funding model alternatives discussed
above regarding discounts, number of tiers and allocation percentages,
the Operating Committee also discussed other possible funding models.
For example, the Operating Committee considered allocating the total
CAT costs equally among each of the Participants, and then permitting
each Participant to charge its own members as it deems appropriate.\79\
The Operating Committee determined that such an approach raised a
variety of issues, including the likely inconsistency of the ensuing
charges, potential for lack of transparency, and the impracticality of
multiple SROs submitting invoices for CAT charges. The Operating
Committee therefore determined that the proposed funding model was
preferable to this alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ See FIA Principal Traders Group Letter at 2; Belvedere
Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(H) Industry Member Input
    Commenters expressed concern regarding the level of Industry Member
input into the development of the proposed funding model, and certain
commenters have recommended a greater role in the governance of the
CAT.\80\ The Participants previously addressed this concern in its
letters responding to comments on the Plan and the CAT Fees.\81\ As
discussed in those letters, the Participants discussed the funding
model with the Development Advisory Group (``DAG''), the advisory group
formed to assist in the development of the Plan, during its original
development.\82\ Moreover, Industry Members currently have a voice in
the affairs of the Operating Committee and operation of the CAT
generally through the Advisory Committee established pursuant to Rule
613(b)(7) and Section 4.13 of the Plan. The Advisory Committee attends
all meetings of the Operating Committee, as well as meetings of various
subcommittees and working groups, and provides valuable and critical
input for the Participants' and Operating Committee's consideration.
The Operating Committee continues to believe that Industry Members have
an appropriate voice regarding the funding of the Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ See Suspension Order at 31662; MFA Letter at 1-2.
    \81\ Letter from Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC
(Sept. 23, 2016) (``Plan Response Letter''); Letter from CAT NMS
Plan Participants to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, SEC (June 29, 2017)
(``Fee Rule Response Letter'').
    \82\ Fee Rule Response Letter at 2; Plan Response Letter at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(I) Conflicts of Interest
    Commenters also raised concerns regarding Participant conflicts of
interest in setting the CAT Fees.\83\ The Participants previously
responded to this concern in both the Plan Response Letter and the Fee
Rule Response Letter.\84\ As discussed in those letters, the Plan, as
approved by the SEC, adopts various measures to protect against the
potential conflicts issues raised by the Participants' fee-setting
authority. Such measures include the operation of the Company as a not
for profit business league and on a break-even basis, and the
requirement that the Participants file all CAT Fees under Section 19(b)
of the Exchange Act. The Operating Committee continues to believe that
these measures adequately protect against concerns regarding conflicts
of interest in setting fees, and that additional measures, such as an
independent third party to evaluate an appropriate CAT Fee, are
unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See Suspension Order at 31662; FIA Principal Traders Group
at 3.
    \84\ See Plan Response Letter at 16, 17; Fee Rule Response
Letter at 10-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(J) Fee Transparency
    Commenters also argued that they could not adequately assess
whether the CAT Fees were fair and equitable because the Operating
Committee has not provided details as to what the Participants are
receiving in return for the CAT Fees.\85\ The Operating Committee
provided a detailed discussion of the proposed funding model in the
Plan, including the expenses to be covered by the CAT Fees. In
addition, the agreement between the Company and the Plan Processor sets
forth a comprehensive set of services to be provided to the Company
with regard to the CAT. Such services include, without limitation: user
support services (e.g., a help desk); tools to allow each CAT Reporter
to monitor and correct their submissions; a comprehensive compliance
program to monitor CAT Reporters' adherence to Rule 613; publication of
detailed Technical Specifications for Industry Members and
Participants; performing data linkage functions; creating comprehensive
data security and confidentiality safeguards; creating query
functionality for regulatory users (i.e., the Participants, and the SEC
and SEC staff); and performing billing and collection functions. The
Operating Committee further notes that the services provided by the
Plan Processor and the costs related thereto were subject to a bidding
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See FIA Principal Traders Group at 3; SIFMA Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(K) Funding Authority
    Commenters also questioned the authority of the Operating Committee
to impose CAT Fees on Industry Members.\86\ The Participants previously
responded to this same comment in the Plan Response Letter and the Fee
Rule Response Letter.\87\ As the Participants previously noted, SEC
Rule 613 specifically contemplates broker-dealers contributing to the
funding of the CAT. In addition, as noted by the SEC, the CAT
``substantially enhance[s] the ability of the SROs and the Commission
to oversee today's securities markets,'' \88\ thereby benefitting all
market participants. Therefore, the Operating Committing continues to
believe that it is equitable for both Participants and

Industry Members to contribute to funding the cost of the CAT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See Suspension Order at 31661-2; SIFMA Letter at 2.
    \87\ See Plan Response Letter at 9-10; Fee Rule Response Letter
at 3-4.
    \88\ Rule 613 Adopting Release at 45726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\89\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\90\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers, and is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors
and the public interest. As discussed above, the SEC approved the
bifurcated, tiered, fixed fee funding model in the CAT NMS Plan,
finding it was reasonable and that it equitably allocated fees among
Participants and Industry Members. The Exchange believes that the
proposed tiered fees adopted pursuant to the funding model approved by
the SEC in the CAT NMS Plan are reasonable, equitably allocated and not
unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \90\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act
because it implements, interprets or clarifies the provisions of the
Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members
in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. In approving
the Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan ``is necessary and appropriate in
the public interest, for the protection of investors and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.'' \91\ To the extent that this
proposal implements, interprets or clarifies the Plan and applies
specific requirements to Industry Members, the Exchange believes that
this proposal furthers the objectives of the Plan, as identified by the
SEC, and is therefore consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Approval Order at 84697.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed tiered fees are reasonable.
First, the total CAT Fees to be collected would be directly associated
with the costs of establishing and maintaining the CAT, where such
costs include Plan Processor costs and costs related to insurance,
third party services and the operational reserve. The CAT Fees would
not cover Participant services unrelated to the CAT. In addition, any
surplus CAT Fees cannot be distributed to the individual Participants;
such surpluses must be used as a reserve to offset future fees. Given
the direct relationship between the fees and the CAT costs, the
Exchange believes that the total level of the CAT Fees is reasonable.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed CAT Fees are
reasonably designed to allocate the total costs of the CAT equitably
between and among the Participants and Industry Members, and are
therefore not unfairly discriminatory. As discussed in detail above,
the proposed tiered fees impose comparable fees on similarly situated
CAT Reporters. For example, those with a larger impact on the CAT
(measured via message traffic or market share) pay higher fees, whereas
CAT Reporters with a smaller impact pay lower fees. Correspondingly,
the tiered structure lessens the impact on smaller CAT Reporters by
imposing smaller fees on those CAT Reporters with less market share or
message traffic. In addition, the fee structure takes into
consideration distinctions in securities trading operations of CAT
Reporters, including ATSs trading OTC Equity Securities, and equity and
options market makers.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that the division of the total CAT
costs between Industry Members and Execution Venues, and the division
of the Execution Venue portion of total costs between Equity and
Options Execution Venues, is reasonably designed to allocate CAT costs
among CAT Reporters. The 75%/25% division between Industry Members
(other than Execution Venue ATSs) and Execution Venues maintains the
greatest level of comparability across the funding model. For example,
the cost allocation establishes fees for the largest Industry Members
(i.e., those Industry Members in Tiers 1) that are comparable to the
largest Equity Execution Venues and Options Execution Venues (i.e.,
those Execution Venues in Tier 1). Furthermore, the allocation of total
CAT cost recovery recognizes the difference in the number of CAT
Reporters that are Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs)
versus CAT Reporters that are Execution Venues. Similarly, the 67%/33%
allocation between Equity and Options Execution Venues also helps to
provide fee comparability for the largest CAT Reporters.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are
reasonable because they would provide ease of calculation, ease of
billing and other administrative functions, and predictability of a
fixed fee. Such factors are crucial to estimating a reliable revenue
stream for the Company and for permitting CAT Reporters to reasonably
predict their payment obligations for budgeting purposes.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange notes that the
proposed rule change implements provisions of the CAT NMS Plan approved
by the Commission, and is designed to assist the Exchange in meeting
its regulatory obligations pursuant to the Plan. Similarly, all
national securities exchanges and FINRA are proposing this proposed fee
schedule to implement the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. Therefore,
this is not a competitive fee filing and, therefore, it does not raise
competition issues between and among the exchanges and FINRA.
    Moreover, as previously described, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change fairly and equitably allocates costs among CAT
Reporters. In particular, the proposed fee schedule is structured to
impose comparable fees on similarly situated CAT Reporters, and lessen
the impact on smaller CAT Reporters. CAT Reporters with similar levels
of CAT activity will pay similar fees. For example, Industry Members
(other than Execution Venue ATSs) with higher levels of message traffic
will pay higher fees, and those with lower levels of message traffic
will pay lower fees. Similarly, Execution Venue ATSs and other
Execution Venues with larger market share will pay higher fees, and
those with lower levels of market share will pay lower fees. Therefore,
given that there is generally a relationship between message traffic
and/or market share to the CAT Reporter's size, smaller CAT Reporters
generally pay less than larger CAT Reporters. Accordingly, the Exchange
does not believe that the CAT Fees would have a disproportionate effect
on smaller or larger CAT Reporters. In addition, ATSs and exchanges
will pay the same fees based on market share. Therefore, the Exchange
does not believe that the fees will impose any burden on the
competition between ATSs and exchanges. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fees will minimize the potential for adverse
effects on competition between CAT Reporters in the market.

    Furthermore, the tiered, fixed fee funding model limits the
disincentives to providing liquidity to the market. Therefore, the
proposed fees are structured to limit burdens on competitive quoting
and other liquidity provision in the market.
    In addition, the Operating Committee believes that the proposed
changes to the Original Proposal, as discussed above in detail, address
certain competitive concerns raised by commenters, including concerns
related to, among other things, smaller ATSs, ATSs trading OTC Equity
Securities, market making quoting and fee comparability. As discussed
above, the Operating Committee believes that the proposals address the
competitive concerns raised by commenters.

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

    The Exchange has set forth responses to comments received regarding
the Original Proposal in Section 3(a)(4) above.

III. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 2

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 2
is consistent with the Act. In particular, the Commission seeks comment
on the following:

Allocation of Costs

    (1) Commenters' views as to whether the allocation of CAT costs is
consistent with the funding principle expressed in the CAT NMS Plan
that requires the Operating Committee to ``avoid any disincentives such
as placing an inappropriate burden on competition and a reduction in
market quality.'' \92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Commenters' views as to whether the allocation of 25% of CAT
costs to the Execution Venues (including all the Participants) and 75%
to Industry Members, will incentivize or disincentivize the
Participants to effectively and efficiently manage the CAT costs
incurred by the Participants since they will only bear 25% of such
costs.
    (3) Commenters' views on the determination to allocate 75% of all
costs incurred by the Participants from November 21, 2016 to November
21, 2017 to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs), when
such costs are development and build costs and when Industry Member
reporting is scheduled to commence a year later, including views on
whether such ``fees, costs and expenses . . . [are] fairly and
reasonably shared among the Participants and Industry Members'' in
accordance with the CAT NMS Plan.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Section 11.1(c) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (4) Commenters' views on whether an analysis of the ratio of the
expected Industry Member-reported CAT messages to the expected SRO-
reported CAT messages should be the basis for determining the
allocation of costs between Industry Members and Execution Venues.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ The Notice for the CAT NMS Plan did not provide a
comprehensive count of audit trail message traffic from different
regulatory data sources, but the Commission did estimate the ratio
of all SRO audit trail messages to OATS audit trail messages to be
1.9431. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77724 (April 27,
2016), 81 FR 30613, 30721 n.919 and accompanying text (May 17,
2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (5) Any additional data analysis on the allocation of CAT costs,
including any existing supporting evidence.

Comparability

    (6) Commenters' views on the shift in the standard used to assess
the comparability of CAT Fees, with the emphasis now on comparability
of individual entities instead of affiliated entities, including views
as to whether this shift is consistent with the funding principle
expressed in the CAT NMS Plan that requires the Operating Committee to
establish a fee structure in which the fees charged to ``CAT Reporters
with the most CAT-related activity (measured by market share and/or
message traffic, as applicable) are generally comparable (where, for
these comparability purposes, the tiered fee structure takes into
consideration affiliations between or among CAT Reporters, whether
Execution Venues and/or Industry Members).'' \95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ Section 11.2(c) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) Commenters' views as to whether the reduction in the number of
tiers for Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) from nine
to seven, the revised allocation of CAT costs between Equity Execution
Venues and Options Execution Venues from a 75%/25% split to a 67%/33%
split, and the adjustment of all tier percentages and recovery
allocations achieves comparability across individual entities, and
whether these changes should have resulted in a change to the
allocation of 75% of total CAT costs to Industry Members (other than
Execution Venue ATSs) and 25% of such costs to Execution Venues.

Discounts

    (8) Commenters' views as to whether the discounts for options
market-makers, equities market-makers, and Equity ATSs trading OTC
Equity Securities are clear, reasonable, and consistent with the
funding principle expressed in the CAT NMS Plan that requires the
Operating Committee to ``avoid any disincentives such as placing an
inappropriate burden on competition and a reduction in market
quality,'' \96\ including views as to whether the discounts for market-
makers limit any potential disincentives to act as a market-maker and/
or to provide liquidity due to CAT fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Section 11.2(e) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calculation of Costs and Imposition of CAT Fees

    (9) Commenters' views as to whether the amendment provides
sufficient information regarding the amount of costs incurred from
November 21, 2016 to November 21, 2017, particularly, how those costs
were calculated, how those costs relate to the proposed CAT Fees, and
how costs incurred after November 21, 2017 will be assessed upon
Industry Members and Execution Venues;
    (10) Commenters' views as to whether the timing of the imposition
and collection of CAT Fees on Execution Venues and Industry Members is
reasonably related to the timing of when the Company expects to incur
such development and implementation costs.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Section 11.1(c) of the CAT NMS Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (11) Commenters' views on dividing CAT costs equally among each of
the Participants, and then each Participant charging its own members as
it deems appropriate, taking into consideration the possibility of
inconsistency in charges, the potential for lack of transparency, and
the impracticality of multiple SROs submitting invoices for CAT
charges.

Burden on Competition and Barriers to Entry

    (12) Commenters' views as to whether the allocation of 75% of CAT
costs to Industry Members (other than Execution Venue ATSs) imposes any
burdens on competition to Industry Members, including views on what
baseline competitive landscape the Commission should consider when
analyzing the proposed allocation of CAT costs.
    (13) Commenters' views on the burdens on competition, including the
relevant markets and services and the impact of such burdens on the
baseline competitive landscape in those relevant markets and services.
    (14) Commenters' views on any potential burdens imposed by the fees
on competition between and among

CAT Reporters, including views on which baseline markets and services
the fees could have competitive effects on and whether the fees are
designed to minimize such effects.
    (15) Commenters' general views on the impact of the proposed fees
on economies of scale and barriers to entry.
    (16) Commenters' views on the baseline economies of scale and
barriers to entry for Industry Members and Execution Venues and the
relevant markets and services over which these economies of scale and
barriers to entry exist.
    (17) Commenters' views as to whether a tiered fee structure
necessarily results in less active tiers paying more per unit than
those in more active tiers, thus creating economies of scale, with
supporting information if possible.
    (18) Commenters' views as to how the level of the fees for the
least active tiers would or would not affect barriers to entry.
    (19) Commenters' views on whether the difference between the cost
per unit (messages or market share) in less active tiers compared to
the cost per unit in more active tiers creates regulatory economies of
scale that favor larger competitors and, if so:
    (a) How those economies of scale compare to operational economies
of scale; and
    (b) Whether those economies of scale reduce or increase the current
advantages enjoyed by larger competitors or otherwise alter the
competitive landscape.
    (20) Commenters' views on whether the fees could affect competition
between and among national securities exchanges and FINRA, in light of
the fact that implementation of the fees does not require the unanimous
consent of all such entities, and, specifically:
    (a) Whether any of the national securities exchanges or FINRA are
disadvantaged by the fees; and
    (b) If so, whether any such disadvantages would be of a magnitude
that would alter the competitive landscape.
    (21) Commenters' views on any potential burden imposed by the fees
on competitive quoting and other liquidity provision in the market,
including, specifically:
    (a) Commenters' views on the kinds of disincentives that discourage
liquidity provision and/or disincentives that the Commission should
consider in its analysis;
    (b) Commenters' views as to whether the fees could disincentivize
the provision of liquidity; and
    (c) Commenters' views as to whether the fees limit any
disincentives to provide liquidity.
    (22) Commenters' views as to whether the amendment adequately
responds to and/or addresses comments received on related filings.

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-GEMX-2017-17 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-GEMX-2017-17. 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-GEMX-2017-17, and should be submitted on
or before January 4, 2018.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-27008 Filed 12-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 92 (Monday, May 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22379-22382]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09740]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-
2000-7918; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-
2003-14504; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20027;
FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2007-27515;
FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2009-0086;
FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2013-0022;
FMCSA-2013-0024; FMCSA-2013-0025; FMCSA-2013-0026; FMCSA-2014-0299;
FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0303; FMCSA-2014-0304;
FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2015-0048]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 120
individuals from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these individuals to continue to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision
requirement in one eye.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions was effective on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before June 14,
2017.

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006;
FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2001-9258;
FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477;
FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2007-27333;
FMCSA-2007-27515; FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054;
FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2011-0092; FMCSA-2012-0337;
FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2013-0024; FMCSA-2013-0025; FMCSA-2013-0026;
FMCSA-2014-0299; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-0303;
FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2015-0048 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.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for two years 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 two-year period.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to driver a CMV if that person:

    Has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each
eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected
to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant
binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or
without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least 70[deg] in
the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to recognize
the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green, and
amber.

    The 120 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the vision standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable two-year period

II. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of
the 120 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining
an exemption from the vision requirement (63 FR 66226; 64 FR 16517; 65
FR 20245; 65 FR 45817; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR 66286; 65 FR 77066; 65 FR
78256; 66 FR 13825; 66 FR 16311; 66 FR 17743; 66 FR 17994; 66 FR 33990;
67 FR 57266; 67 FR 68719; 68 FR 2629; 68 FR 13360; 68 FR 19598; 68 FR
33570; 68 FR 35772; 69 FR 33997; 69 FR 61292; 69 FR 64806; 69 FR 71100;
70 FR 2701; 70 FR 2705; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR
25878; 70 FR 30997; 70 FR 33937; 70 FR 37891; 71 FR 63379; 72 FR 184;
72 FR 1050; 72 FR 1051; 72 FR 1053; 72 FR 5489; 72 FR 11425; 72 FR
11426; 72 FR 12666; 72 FR 21313; 72 FR 25831; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 28093;
72 FR 32703; 72 FR 32705; 72 FR 34062; 73 FR 78423; 74 FR 6207; 74 FR
7097; 74 FR 8302; 74 FR 8842; 74 FR 11988; 74 FR 15584; 74 FR 15586; 74
FR 19267; 74 FR 20253; 74 FR 21427; 74 FR 23472; 74 FR 26464; 74 FR
26471; 74 FR 28094; 75 FR 79083; 76 FR 8809; 76 FR 9856; 76 FR 11215;
76 FR 12216; 76 FR 15361; 76 FR 20076; 76 FR 21796; 76 FR 25766; 76 FR
29026; 76 FR 32016; 76 FR 32017; 76 FR 34133; 76 FR 34135; 76 FR 37885;
77 FR 70534; 77 FR 74734; 78 FR 9772; 78 FR 12815; 78 FR 12822; 78 FR
14410; 78 FR 16761; 78 FR 16762; 78 FR 16912; 78 FR 20376; 78 FR 22596;
78 FR 22598; 78 FR 22602; 78 FR 29431; 78 FR 30954; 78 FR 32703; 78 FR
32708; 78 FR 34140; 78 FR 34141; 78 FR 37270; 78 FR 37274; 78 FR 57677;
79 FR 73397; 80 FR 2473; 80 FR 3305; 80 FR 3308; 80 FR 9304; 80 FR
12248; 80 FR 12254; 80 FR 12547; 80 FR 14223; 80 FR 14240; 80 FR 15859;
80 FR 15863; 80 FR 16502; 80 FR 18693; 80 FR 20559; 80 FR 22773; 80 FR
25766; 80 FR 25768; 80 FR 26139; 80 FR 29149; 80 FR 29152; 80 FR 29154;
80 FR 31635; 80 FR 31640; 80 FR 31962; 80 FR 33009; 80 FR 33011; 80 FR
33324; 80 FR 45573; 80 FR 48409). They have submitted evidence showing
that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement
specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and that the vision impairment is
stable. In addition, a review of each record of safety while driving
with the respective vision deficiencies over the past two years
indicates each applicant continues to meet the vision exemption
requirements. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting
each driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate
commerce. Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for
each renewal applicant for a period of two years is likely to achieve a
level of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of July and
are discussed below:
    As of June 4, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 38 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR
66286; 65 FR 78256; 66 FR 13825; 66 FR 16311; 67 FR 68719; 68 FR 2629;
68 FR 13360; 68 FR 19598; 68 FR 33570; 69 FR 33997; 69 FR 61292; 69 FR
64806; 69 FR 71100; 70 FR 2705; 70 FR 12265; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 25878;
71 FR 63379; 72 FR 184; 72 FR 1050; 72 FR 1051; 72 FR 1053; 72 FR 5489;
72 FR 11425; 72 FR 11426; 72 FR 28093; 73 FR 78423; 74 FR 6207; 74 FR
7097; 74 FR 8302; 74 FR 8842; 74 FR 11988; 74 FR 15584; 74 FR 15586; 74
FR 20253; 74 FR 21427; 75 FR 79083; 76 FR 8809; 76 FR 9856; 76 FR
11215; 76 FR 11216; 76 FR 15361; 76 FR 20076; 76 FR 21796; 76 FR 29026;
77 FR 70534; 77 FR 74734; 78 FR 9772; 78 FR 12815; 78 FR 12822; 78 FR
14410; 78 FR 16761; 78 FR 16762; 78 FR 16912; 78 FR 22596; 78 FR 22602;
78 FR 29431; 78 FR 30954; 79 FR 73397; 80 FR 2473; 80 FR 3305; 80 FR
3308; 80 FR 9304; 80 FR 12248; 80 FR 12254; 80 FR 12547; 80 FR 14223;
80 FR 14240; 80 FR 15859; 80 FR 15863; 80 FR 16502; 80 FR 18693; 80 FR
20559; 80 FR 22773; 80 FR 25766; 80 FR 29152; 80 FR 33011; 80 FR 33324;
80 FR 45573):
Charles D. Ashworth (KY)
Jimmie L. Blue (MT)
Ronald G. Bradley (IN)
Terry L. Daneau (NH)
Tracy A. Doty (TN)
Glenn E. Dowell (IN)
Jerald O. Edwards (ID)
Kenneth E. Flack, Jr. (AL)
Maylin E. Frickey (OR)
Ramon L. Green (LA)
Richard G. Gruber (SC)
Matthew J. Hahn (PA)
Gerald L. Harper (MO)
Dennis K. Harris (GA)
Leon E. Jackson (GA)
Francisco J. Jimenez (TX)
William D. Johnson (OK)
Jimmy C. Killian (NC)
Peter M. Kirby (NJ)
Robert T. Lantry (MA)
Phillip L. Mangen (OH)
Clarence M. Miles (OK)
Steven M. Montalbo (CA)
Richard N. Moyer, Jr. (PA)
Craig C. Perrotta (MA)
Virgil A. Potts (CO)
Donald G. Reed (FL)
Vincent Rubino (NJ)
Randy G. Spilman (OH)
Joseph Stenberg (MT)
Terrance W. Temple (OH)
Thomas S. Thompson (NE)
Jeffrey W. Tucker (IN)
Russell E. Ward (NH)
Robert A. Wegner (MN)
Wayne A. Whitehead (NY)
Thomas W. Workman (IL)
Kevin D. Zaloudek (VT)
    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2000-7918; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2003-14504;
FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2008-0398;
FMCSA-2009-

0054; FMCSA-2011-0010; FMCSA-2012-0337; FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2013-
0024; FMCSA-2014-0299; FMCSA-2014-0300; FMCSA-2014-0302; FMCSA-2014-
0303; FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305. Their exemptions are effective
as of June 4, 2017, and will expire on June 4, 2019.
    As of June 6, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 27 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (78 FR
20376; 78 FR 34141; 80 FR 26139; 80 FR 29149; 80 FR 48409):
Glenn Blanton (OH)
Matthew J. Buersken (MN)
Stephen M. Cook (PA)
Roderick Croft (FL)
Lawrence M. Davis (VT)
Bobby C. Floyd (TN)
Jayme L. Gilbert (NY)
Jesse M. Greene (TN)
Wesley D. Hogue (AR)
Robert W. Kleve (IA)
Anthony Lang (NH)
Jason C. Laub (OH)
Edward J. Lavin (CT)
Wayne D. Litwiller, Sr. (IL)
Collin C. Longacre (PA)
Luther A. McKinney (VA)
Steven J. McLain (TN)
Raymond W. Meier (WA)
Enes Milanovic (MI)
Michael L. Penrod (IA)
David P. Ramos (CA)
Donie L. Rhoads (MT)
Steven Schaumberg (NJ)
Dale G. Stringer (TX)
James B. Taflinger, Sr. (VA)
Michael J. Tauriac, Jr. (LA)
Ronald W. Thompson (WI)
    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2013-0025; FMCSA-2015-0048. Their exemptions are effective as of
June 6, 2017, and will expire on June 6, 2019.
    As of June 12, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (74 FR
19267; 74 FR 28094; 76 FR 32016; 76 FR 32703; 80 FR 25768):
Michael D. Abel (NE)
Paul M. Christina (PA)
Edward J. Grant (IL)
Johnny K. Hiatt (NC)
Jeffrey M. Mueller (MO)
George M. Nelson (OH)
Christopher A. Weidner (CT)
Paul A. Wolfe (OH)
    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2008-0106; FMCSA-2009-0086. Their exemptions are effective as of
June 12, 2017, and will expire on June 12, 2019.
    As of June 13, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (70 FR
17504; 70 FR 30997; 72 FR 21313; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 32703; 74 FR 23472;
76 FR 32017; 78 FR 32708; 80 FR 29154):
Roosevelt Bell, Jr. (NC)
David K. Boswell (TN)
Bernabe V. Cerda (TX)
Michael S. Crawford (IL)
Rex A. Dyer (VT)
Patrick J. Goebel (IA)
Thomas A. Gotto (IA)
Kenneth C. Reeves (OR)
Thomas E. Summers, Sr. (OH)
Daniel E. Watkins (FL)
Tommy N. Whitworth (TX)
    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2007-27515. Their exemptions are effective as
of June 13, 2017, and will expire on June 13, 2019.
    As of June 20, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 8 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (72 FR
21313; 72 FR 32703; 74 FR 11988; 74 FR 19267; 74 FR 21427; 74 FR 23472;
74 FR 28094; 76 FR 21796; 76 FR 32016; 76 FR 32017; 78 FR 12815; 78 FR
16912; 78 FR 22596; 78 FR 22598; 78 FR 22602; 78 FR 29431; 78 FR 32703;
78 FR 32708; 78 FR 37274; 80 FR 31635):
Fred Boggs (WV)
Russell A. Bolduc (CT)
James M. Del Sasso (IL)
Darryl W. Hardy (AL)
Larry M. Hawkins (AZ)
Terry L. Lipscomb (AL)
Joseph E. Pfaff (IL)
Dustin N. Sullivan (MD)
    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2007-27515; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2009-0086; FMCSA-2013-0022;
FMCSA-2013-0024; FMCSA-2013-0026. Their exemptions are effective as of
June 20, 2017, and will expire on June 20, 2019.
    As of June 26, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 14 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (63 FR
66226; 64 FR 16517; 65 FR 20245; 65 FR 45817; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR 77066;
66 FR 17743; 66 FR 17994; 66 FR 33990; 67 FR 57266; 68 FR 35772; 70 FR
2701; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 17504; 70 FR 30997; 70 FR 33937; 72 FR 12666;
72 FR 25831; 72 FR 32705; 74 FR 15586; 74 FR 26464; 76 FR 21796; 76 FR
34135; 78 FR 34140; 80 FR 33009):

Johnny A. Beutler (SD)
Brett L. Condon (MD)
Christopher A. Deadman (MI)
Daryl A. Jester (DE)
James P. Jones (ME)
Clyde H. Kitzan (ND)
Larry J. Lang (MI)
William A. Moore, Jr. (NV)
Richard S. Rehbein (MN)
David E. Sanders (NC)
David B. Speller (MN)
Lynn D. Veach (IA)
Harry S. Warren (FL)
Michael C. Wines (MD)
    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-1998-4334; FMCSA-2000-7006; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2001-9258;
FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560; FMCSA-2007-27333. Their exemptions
are effective as of June 26, 2017, and will expire on June 26, 2019.
    As of June 28, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 11 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (76 FR
25766; 76 FR 37885; 78 FR 37270; 80 FR 31640):

Jan M. Bernath (OH)
Joseph L. Butler (IN)
Shawn Carroll (OK)
Walter C. Dean, Sr. (AL)
Mark T. Gileau (CT)
Peter D. Gouge (IA)
Alan D. Harberts (IA)
Wendell S. Sehen (OH)
Gary E. Valentine (OH)
Kevin W. Van Arsdol (CO)
Charles Van Dyke (WI)

    The drivers were included in docket No. FMCSA-2011-0092. Their
exemptions are effective as of June 28, 2017, and will expire on June
28, 2019.
    As of June 30, 2017, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, the following 3 individuals have satisfied the conditions for
obtaining a renewed exemption from the vision requirements (65 FR
78256; 66 FR 16311; 68 FR 13360; 70 FR 2701; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 17504;
70 FR 30997; 70 FR 37891; 72 FR 27624; 72 FR 34062; 74 FR 26471; 76 FR
34133; 78 FG 57677; 80 FR 31962):

Edmund J. Barron (PA)
Roger K. Cox (NJ)
Thomas E. Howard (IN)

    The drivers were included in one of the following docket Nos:
FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-2005-20027; FMCSA-2005-20560. Their exemptions
are effective as of June 30, 2017, and will expire on June 30, 2019.

Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each

driver must undergo an annual physical examination (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirements in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10),
and (b) by a certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5,
who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified under 49
CFR 391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the Medical Examiner at
the time of the annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must
provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer for
retention in the driver's qualification file and retains a copy of the
certification on his/her person while driving for presentation to a
duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. The
exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.

IV. Preemption

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

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 120 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited
above (49 CFR 391.64(b)). In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315, each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: May 4, 2017.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-09740 Filed 5-12-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P