[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 35010]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14540-002]

Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency; Notice of Surrender of
Preliminary Permit

    Take notice that Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency,
permittee for the proposed Melvin Price Lock and Dam, Missouri--
Hydroelectric Water Power Project, has requested that its preliminary
permit be terminated. The permit was issued on June 25, 2014, and would
have expired on May 31, 2017.\1\ The project would have been located on
the Mississippi River near the City of Alton, Illinois, in Madison
County, Illinois, and the City of West Alton, in St. Charles County,
Missouri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Western Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, 147 FERC ] 62,226
(2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary permit for Project No. 14540 will remain in effect
until the close of business, June 24, 2016. But, if the Commission is
closed on this day, then the permit remains in effect until the close
of business on the next day in which the Commission is open.\2\ New
applications for this site may not be submitted until after the permit
surrender is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2014).

    Dated: May 25, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-12832 Filed 5-31-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70178-70183]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65678; File No. SR-ISE-2011-67]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to Market Data Fees

November 3, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 24, 2011, the International Securities Exchange,
LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared
by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to adopt
subscription fees for the sale of a market data offering called the ISE
Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site http://www.ise.com, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    ISE proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees to adopt subscription
fees for the sale of the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed. The
Exchange previously submitted a proposed rule change to establish this
data feed.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 65295 (September 8, 2011), 76
FR 56832 (September 14, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed
    The ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed delivers real-time
implied volatilities and risk parameters for equity, index and ETF
options. This information is used to track an option's price relative
to changes in volatility and the underlying security's price, which
affects the theoretical price of an option. The risk parameters are
useful for delta neutral option execution and monitoring an option's
time premium decay. The ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed is also
useful for investing and hedging strategies such as placing orders
based on changes in levels of volatility. The ISE Implied Volatility
and Greeks Feed includes real-time implied volatilities for the bid,
ask and mid-point price as well as delta, gamma, vega, theta and rho
for each option series. The ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed is a
low latency feed that produces data for the entire universe of U.S.
options disseminated by the Options Price Reporting Authority (OPRA).
The Exchange believes the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed
provides valuable information that can help users make informed
investment decisions.

Proposed Fees for ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed
    The Exchange proposes to make the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks
Feed available to both members and non-members on a subscription basis,
as follows:
     $5,000 per month per Business Unit \4\ for Subscribers \5\
who are Professionals, and $50 per controlled device \6\ per month
after the first 50 controlled devices. This subscription level is for
internal use only and includes the first 50 controlled devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``Business Unit'' is a separate and distinct business
group at a Subscriber firm that has access to the ISE Implied
Volatility and Greeks Feed. A market making desk, a risk management
group, etc. would each be considered a Business Unit.
    \5\ A ``Subscriber'' is any firm that receives the ISE Implied
Volatility and Greeks Feed directly from the ISE or indirectly
through a redistributor and then distributes it either internally or
externally. A redistributor includes market data vendors and
connectivity providers such as extranet and private network
providers.
    \6\ A ``controlled device'' is any device that a Subscriber or
Managed Data Access Distributor of the ISE Implied Volatility and
Greeks Feed permits to access the information in the ISE Implied
Volatility and Greeks Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange is proposing to create a new data
distribution model, called the Managed Data Access Service \7\ to
further the distribution of the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks
Feed.\8\ Under this distribution model, Managed Data Access
Distributors \9\ are required to monitor the delivery of the data in
the Managed Data Access Service to their clients, the Managed Data
Access Recipients.\10\ This new pricing and administrative option is in
response to industry demand, as well as due to changes in the
technology used to distribute market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Managed Data Access Service'' is any retransmission data
product containing the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed
offered by a Managed Data Access Distributor, as defined below,
where the Managed Data Access Distributor manages and monitors, but
does not necessarily control, the information.
    \8\ The Exchange notes that a managed data solution is not a
novel distribution model. At least one other exchange currently
offers a managed data solution to distribute its proprietary market
data. See Exchange Act Release No. 34-63276 (November 8, 2010), 75
FR 69717 (November 15, 2010) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-138).
    \9\ A ``Managed Data Access Distributor'' is a subscriber of the
ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed that permits access to the
information in the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed through a
``controlled device.'' A Managed Data Access Distributor can also
offer a data feed solution, including an Application Programming
Interface (API) or similar automated delivery solutions, with only
limited entitlement controls (e.g., usernames and/or passwords) to a
recipient of the information.
    \10\ A ``Managed Data Access Recipient'' is a subscriber to the
Managed Data Access Service for the purpose of accessing the ISE
Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed offered by a Managed Data Access
Distributor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Managed Data Access Service provides an alternative delivery option
for the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed. The Managed Data Access
Distributor must agree to reformat, redisplay and/or alter the ISE
Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed prior to retransmission, but not to
affect the integrity of the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed and
not to render it inaccurate, unfair, uninformative, fictitious,
misleading, or discriminatory.
    The Exchange will maintain contracts with Managed Data Access
Recipients, who may use the information in the ISE Implied Volatility
and Greeks Feed for internal purposes only and may be liable for any
unauthorized use under the Managed Data Access Service.
    In the past, the Exchange has considered this type of distribution
to be an uncontrolled data product if the Managed Data Access
Distributor does not control both the entitlements and the display of
the information. Over the last several years, Managed Data Access
Distributors have improved the technical delivery and monitoring
capabilities of data therefore Managed Data Access Service is a
response to an industry need to administer new types of technical
deliveries.
Proposed Fees for ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed as a Managed
Data Access Service
    The Exchange proposes to charge for Managed Data Access Service for
the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed, as follows:
     $1,500 per month for Managed Data Access Distributors who
distribute the data feed externally through a controlled device to Non-
Professional recipients, and $1 per controlled device per month.
     $1,500 per month for Managed Data Access Distributors who
distribute the data feed externally through a controlled device to
Professional recipients, and $50 per controlled device per month.
     $1,500 per month for Managed Data Access Distributors who
distribute the data feed internally from an Application Programming
Interface (API) to Professional recipients, and a monthly fee based on
the number of unique option symbols received by the recipient, as
follows:
      $1,000 per month for up to 10,000 unique option symbols.
      $2,000 per month for up to 25,000 unique option symbols.
      $3,000 per month for up to 50,000 unique option symbols.
      $4,000 per month for up to 100,000 unique option symbols.
      $5,000 per month for an unlimited number of unique option
symbols.
     $250 per month API log-in fee for Managed Data Access
Recipients. This fee is only applicable to recipients who utilize an
API to receive the ISE Implied Volatility & Greeks Feed from a Managed
Data Access Distributor.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'')
for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(4)
that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees
and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general,
and with Sections 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which ISE operates or controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is also
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \13\ in that it does not
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The fees charged would be the
same for all market participants, and therefore do not unreasonably
discriminate among market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory
organizations and broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility of
offer new and unique market data to the public. It was believed that
this authority would expand the amount of data available to consumers,
and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market
data.
    The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS--by deregulating the
market in proprietary data--would itself further the Act's goals of
facilitating efficiency and competition:

    [E]fficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the
data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the
NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to
receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that
efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive
(and

pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis
of the need for such data.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).

By removing ``unnecessary regulatory restrictions'' on the ability of
exchanges to sell their own data, Regulation NMS advanced the goals of
the Act and the principles reflected in its legislative history. If the
free market should determine whether proprietary data is sold to
broker-dealers at all, it follows that the price at which such data is
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sold should be set by the market as well.

    On July 21, 2010, President Barak [sic] Obama signed into law H.R.
4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of
2010 (``Dodd-Frank Act''), which amended Section 19 of the Act. Among
other things, Section 916 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended paragraph (A)
of Section 19(b)(3) of the Act by inserting the phrase ``on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization'' after ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the self-
regulatory organization.'' As a result, all SRO rule proposals
establishing or changing dues, fees, or other charges are immediately
effective upon filing regardless of whether such dues, fees, or other
charges are imposed on members of the SRO, non-members, or both.
Section 916 further amended paragraph (C) of Section 19(b)(3) of the
Act to read, in pertinent part, ``At any time within the 60-day period
beginning on the date of filing of such a proposed rule change in
accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) [of Section 19(b)], the
Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the change in the rules of
the self-regulatory organization made thereby, if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of this title. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings under paragraph (2)(B) [of
Section 19(b)] to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.''
    ISE believes that these amendments to Section 19 of the Act reflect
Congress's intent to allow the Commission to rely upon the forces of
competition to ensure that fees for market data are reasonable and
equitably allocated. Although Section 19(b) had formerly authorized
immediate effectiveness for a ``due, fee or other charge imposed by the
self-regulatory organization,'' the Commission adopted a policy and
subsequently a rule stipulating that fees for data and other products
available to persons that are not members of the self-regulatory
organization must be approved by the Commission after first being
published for comment. At the time, the Commission supported the
adoption of the policy and the rule by pointing out that unlike
members, whose representation in self-regulatory organization
governance was mandated by the Act, non-members should be given the
opportunity to comment on fees before being required to pay them, and
that the Commission should specifically approve all such fees. ISE
believes that the amendment to Section 19 reflects Congress's
conclusion that the evolution of self-regulatory organization
governance and competitive market structure have rendered the
Commission's prior policy on non-member fees obsolete. Specifically,
many exchanges have evolved from member-owned not-for-profit
corporations into for-profit investor-owned corporations (or
subsidiaries of investor-owned corporations). Accordingly, exchanges no
longer have narrow incentives to manage their affairs for the exclusive
benefit of their members, but rather have incentives to maximize the
appeal of their products to all customers, whether members or
nonmembers, so as to broaden distribution and grow revenues. Moreover,
we believe that the change also reflects an endorsement of the
Commission's determinations that reliance on competitive markets is an
appropriate means to ensure equitable and reasonable prices. Simply
put, the change reflects a presumption that all fee changes should be
permitted to take effect immediately, since the level of all fees are
constrained by competitive forces.
    The recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in NetCoaliton [sic] v. SEC, No. 09-1042
(D.C. Cir. 2010), although reviewing a Commission decision made prior
to the effective date of the Dodd-Frank Act, upheld the Commission's
reliance upon competitive markets to set reasonable and equitably
allocated fees for market data. ``In fact, the legislative history
indicates that the Congress intended that the market system `evolve
through the interplay of competitive forces as unnecessary regulatory
restrictions are removed' and that the SEC wield its regulatory power
`in those situations where competition may not be sufficient,' such as
in the creation of a `consolidated transactional reporting system.'''
\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ NetCoaltion [sic], at 15 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 94-229, at
92 (1975), as reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 321, 323).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court's conclusions about Congressional intent are therefore
reinforced by the Dodd-Frank Act amendments, which create a presumption
that exchange fees, including market data fees, may take effect
immediately, without prior Commission approval, and that the Commission
should take action to suspend a fee change and institute a proceeding
to determine whether the fee change should be approved or disapproved
only where the Commission has concerns that the change may not be
consistent with the Act.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed market data fees are
consistent with the requirements of the Act because competition
provides an effective constraint on the market data fees that the
Exchange has the ability and the incentive to charge. ISE has a
compelling need to attract order flow from market participants in order
to maintain its share of trading volume. This compelling need to
attract order flow imposes significant pressure on ISE to act
reasonably in setting the fees for its market data offerings,
particularly given that the market participants that will pay such fees
often will be the same market participants from whom ISE must attract
order flow. These market participants include broker-dealers that
control the handling of a large volume of customer and proprietary
order flow. Given the portability of order flow from one exchange to
another, any exchange that sought to charge unreasonably high market
data fees would risk alienating many of the same customers on whose
orders it depends for competitive survival. ISE currently competes with
eight options exchanges for order flow.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Commission has previously made a finding that the
options industry is subject to significant competitive forces. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59949 (May 20, 2009), 74 FR
25593 (May 28, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-97) (order approving ISE's
proposal to establish fees for a real-time depth of market
offering).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE is constrained in pricing the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks
Feed by the availability to market participants of alternatives to
purchasing ISE products. ISE must consider the extent to which market
participants would choose one or more alternatives instead of
purchasing the Exchange's data.
    For the reasons cited above, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees for the ISE Implied Volatility and

Greeks Feed are equitable, fair, reasonable and not unreasonably
discriminatory. The Exchange further believes that the continued
availability of the ISE Implied Volatility and Greeks Feed enhances
transparency, fosters competition among orders and markets, and enables
buyers and sellers to obtain better prices. In addition, the Exchange
believes that no substantial countervailing basis exists to support a
finding that the proposed terms and fees for this product fails to meet
the requirements of the Act.

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

    ISE does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. Notwithstanding its
determination that the Commission may rely upon competition to
establish fair and equitably allocated fees for market data, the
NetCoaltion [sic] court found that the Commission had not, in that
case, compiled a record that adequately supported its conclusion that
the market for the data at issue in the case was competitive.
    For the reasons discussed above, ISE believes that the Dodd-Frank
Act amendments to Section 19 materially alter the scope of the
Commission's review of future market data filings, by creating a
presumption that all fees may take effect immediately, without prior
analysis by the Commission of the competitive environment. Even in the
absence of this important statutory change, however, ISE believes that
a record may readily be established to demonstrate the competitive
nature of the market in question.
    As recently noted by a number of exchanges,\17\ there is intense
competition between trading platforms that provide transaction
execution and routing services and proprietary data products.
Transaction execution and proprietary data products are complementary
in that market data is both an input and a byproduct of the execution
service. In fact, market data and trade execution are a paradigmatic
example of joint products with joint costs. The decision whether and on
which platform to post an order will depend on the attributes of the
platform where the order can be posted, including the execution fees,
data quality and price and distribution of its data products. Without
the prospect of a taking order seeing and reacting to a posted order on
a particular platform, the posting of the order would accomplish
little. Without trade executions, exchange data products cannot exist.
Data products are valuable to many end users only insofar as they
provide information that end users expect will assist them or their
customers in making trading decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 63084 (October 13,
2010), 75 FR 64379 (October 19, 2010) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Revise an
Optional Depth Data Enterprise License Fee for Broker-Dealer
Distribution of Depth-of-Book Data) (SR-NASDAQ-2010-125); and 62887
(September 10, 2010), 75 FR 57092 (September 17, 2010) (Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Market Data Feeds) (SR-PHLX-2010-121).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs of producing market data include not only the costs of
the data distribution infrastructure, but also the costs of designing,
maintaining, and operating the exchange's transaction execution
platform and the cost of regulating the exchange to ensure its fair
operation and maintain investor confidence. The total return that a
trading platform earns reflects the revenues it receives from both
products and the joint costs it incurs. Moreover, an exchange's
customers view the costs of transaction executions and of data as a
unified cost of doing business with the exchange. A broker-dealer will
direct orders to a particular exchange only if the expected revenues
from executing trades on the exchange exceed net transaction execution
costs and the cost of data that the broker-dealer chooses to buy to
support its trading decisions (or those of its customers). The choice
of data products is, in turn, a product of the value of the products in
making profitable trading decisions. If the cost of the product exceeds
its expected value, the broker-dealer will choose not to buy it.
    Moreover, as a broker-dealer chooses to direct fewer orders to a
particular exchange, the value of the product to that broker-dealer
decrease, for two reasons. First, the product will contain less
information, because executions of the broker-dealer's orders will not
be reflected in it. Second, and perhaps more important, the product
will be less valuable to that broker-dealer because it does not provide
information about the venue to which it is directing its orders. Data
from the competing venue to which the broker-dealer is directing orders
will become correspondingly more valuable. Thus, a super-competitive
increase in the fees charged for either transactions or data has the
potential to impair revenues from both products. ``No one disputes that
competition for order flow is `fierce'.'' \18\ However, the existence
of fierce competition for order flow implies a high degree of price
sensitivity on the part of broker-dealers with order flow, since they
may readily reduce costs by directing orders toward the lowest-cost
trading venues. A broker-dealer that shifted its order flow from one
platform to another in response to order execution price differentials
would both reduce the value of that platform's market data and reduce
its own need to consume data from the disfavored platform. Similarly,
if a platform increases its market data fees, the change will affect
the overall cost of doing business with the platform, and affected
broker-dealers will assess whether they can lower their trading costs
by directing orders elsewhere and thereby lessening the need for the
more expensive data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ NetCoalition, at 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Analyzing the cost of market data distribution in isolation from
the cost of all of the inputs supporting the creation of market data
will inevitably underestimate the cost of the data. Thus, because it is
impossible to create data without a fast, technologically robust, and
well-regulated execution system, system costs and regulatory costs
affect the price of market data. It would be equally misleading,
however, to attribute all of the exchange's costs to the market data
portion of an exchange's joint product. Rather, all of the exchange's
costs are incurred for the unified purposes of attracting order flow,
executing and/or routing orders, and generating and selling data about
market activity. The total return that an exchange earns reflects the
revenues it receives from the joint products and the total costs of the
joint products.
    Competition among trading platforms can be expected to constrain
the aggregate return each platform earns from the sale of its joint
products, but different platforms may choose from a range of possible,
and equally reasonable, pricing strategies as the means of recovering
total costs. For example, some platforms may choose to pay rebates to
attract orders, charge relatively low prices for market information (or
provide information free of charge) and charge relatively high prices
for accessing posted liquidity. Other platforms may choose a strategy
of paying lower rebates (or no rebates) to attract orders, setting
relatively high prices for market information, and setting relatively
low prices for accessing posted liquidity. In this environment, there
is no economic basis for regulating maximum prices for one of the joint
products in an industry in which suppliers face competitive constraints
with regard to the joint offering.

    The market for market data products is competitive and inherently
contestable because there is fierce competition for the inputs
necessary to the creation of proprietary data and strict pricing
discipline for the proprietary products themselves. Numerous exchanges
compete with each other for listings, trades, and market data itself,
providing virtually limitless opportunities for entrepreneurs who wish
to produce and distribute their own market data. This proprietary data
is produced by each individual exchange, as well as other entities, in
a vigorously competitive market.
    Broker-dealers currently have numerous alternative venues for their
order flow, including numerous self-regulatory organization (``SRO'')
markets, as well as internalizing broker-dealers (``BDs'') and various
forms of alternative trading systems (``ATSs''), including dark pools
and electronic communication networks (``ECNs''). Each SRO market
competes to produce transaction reports via trade executions, and two
FINRA-regulated Trade Reporting Facilities (``TRFs'') compete to
attract internalized transaction reports. Competitive markets for order
flow, executions, and transaction reports provide pricing discipline
for the inputs of proprietary data products. The large number of SROs,
TRFs, BDs, and ATSs that currently produce proprietary data or are
currently capable of producing it provides further pricing discipline
for proprietary data products. Each SRO, TRF, ATS, and BD is currently
permitted to produce proprietary data products, and many currently do
or have announced plans to do so, including NASDAQ, NYSE, NYSE Amex,
NYSEArca, and BATS.
    Any ATS or BD can combine with any other ATS, BD, or multiple ATSs
or BDs to produce joint proprietary data products. Additionally, order
routers and market data vendors can facilitate single or multiple
broker-dealers' production of proprietary data products. The potential
sources of proprietary products are virtually limitless. The fact that
proprietary data from ATSs, BDs, and vendors can by-pass SROs is
significant in two respects. First, non-SROs can compete directly with
SROs for the production and sale of proprietary data products, as BATS
and Arca did before registering as exchanges by publishing proprietary
book data on the Internet. Second, because a single order or
transaction report can appear in an SRO proprietary product, a non-SRO
proprietary product, or both, the data available in proprietary
products is exponentially greater than the actual number of orders and
transaction reports that exist in the marketplace. Market data vendors
provide another form of price discipline for proprietary data products
because they control the primary means of access to end users. Vendors
impose price restraints based upon their business models. For example,
vendors such as Bloomberg and Reuters that assess a surcharge on data
they sell may refuse to offer proprietary products that end users will
not purchase in sufficient numbers. Internet portals, such as Google,
impose a discipline by providing only data that will enable them to
attract ``eyeballs'' that contribute to their advertising revenue.
Retail broker-dealers, such as Schwab and Fidelity, offer their
customers proprietary data only if it promotes trading and generates
sufficient commission revenue. Although the business models may differ,
these vendors' pricing discipline is the same: they can simply refuse
to purchase any proprietary data product that fails to provide
sufficient value. NASDAQ and other producers of proprietary data
products must understand and respond to these varying business models
and pricing disciplines in order to market proprietary data products
successfully.
    Competition among platforms has driven ISE continually to improve
its platform data offerings and to cater to customers' data needs. For
example, ISE has developed and maintained multiple delivery mechanisms
that enable customers to receive data in the form and manner they
prefer and at the lowest cost to them. ISE offers front end
applications such as its PrecISE Trade application which helps
customers utilize data. ISE offers data via multiple extranet
providers, thereby helping to reduce network and total cost for its
data products. Despite these enhancements and a dramatic increase in
message traffic, ISE's fees for market data have, for the most part,
remained flat.
    The vigor of competition for market data is significant and the
Exchange believes that this proposal clearly evidences such
competition. ISE is offering a new pricing model in order to keep pace
with changes in the industry and evolving customer needs.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \19\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \20\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2011-67 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2011-67. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-ISE-2011-67 and should be submitted on or before
December 1, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-29103 Filed 11-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80992-80993]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33145]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66013; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2011-146]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change to Modify Rule 7034 Regarding Low
Latency Network Connections

December 20, 2011.

I. Introduction

    On October 31, 2011, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to modify Exchange Rule 7034 entitled ``Co-
Location Services'' to establish a program for offering low latency
network connections and to establish the initial fees for such
connections. The Exchange also proposed administrative modifications to
Exchange Rule 7034. The proposed rule change was published for comment
in the Federal Register on November 10, 2011.\3\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed
rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 65688 (November 4,
2011), 76 FR 70199 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposed to modify Exchange Rule 7034, which governs
the Exchange's program for co-location services, to offer new options
for low latency network telecommunication connections and to establish
the fees for such connections. As its initial offering, the Exchange
proposed to offer point-to-point telecommunication connectivity from
the co-location facility to select major financial trading and co-
location venues in the New York and New Jersey metropolitan areas,
Toronto, and Chicago.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Id. at 70199. The Exchange represented that it currently
provides a cross connect from a client's cabinet to its requested
telecommunication carrier's cabinet (known as a ``telco cross
connect''). According to the Exchange, clients would have the option
to use the enhanced point-to-point connectivity service to receive
low latency network connectivity from the Exchange's data center to
the client's chosen venue(s), in addition to the telco cross
connect. These connections could be utilized to send market data to
and receive orders from the chosen venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the enhanced point-to-point connectivity
would provide the Exchange's co-location customers with the opportunity
to obtain low latency network connectivity with greater ease than is
currently the case, and at a competitive price.\5\ The Exchange
represented that co-location customers currently obtain similar
services by negotiating fees, obtaining service level agreements, and
executing service agreements directly with approved telecommunication
carriers, and that such co-location customers are currently charged a
monthly negotiated fee by the telecommunications carrier in addition to
a cross connection fee by the Exchange.\6\ The Exchange represented
that for its low latency network connection services, it would obtain
wholesale rates from the carriers and then charge a markup to
compensate the Exchange for its efforts to negotiate and establish the
arrangement, for integrating the connectivity into the Exchange co-
location connectivity offering, and for administrative costs associated
with establishing and maintaining each new connection.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. at 70200.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, co-location customers would have the
opportunity to request these new low latency network telecommunication
connections through the same process used to request a new co-located
cabinet and other co-location services.\8\ Co-location customers would
retain the option of contracting directly with telecommunication
providers, including either the providers that participate in the
program, the current providers in the data center who have not yet
agreed to participate, or any new carrier that is approved to install
equipment in the Exchange's data center.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposed one-time fees for the installation of
telecommunication connectivity to select major financial trading and
co-location venues in the New York and New Jersey metropolitan areas,
Toronto, and Chicago, as well as per-month connectivity fees, at
connectivity levels of 100MB, 1G, and 10G, respectively.\10\ The
Exchange represented that the fees were based on anticipated bandwidth
necessary for the connections and distances to these select venues. The
Exchange indicated its belief that the fees are reasonable, because
they are similar and competitive with fees charged for similar services
by other entities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.

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

    The Exchange also proposed to eliminate references to certain fee
waivers that expired July 31, 2011.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Notice, 76 FR at 70201; see also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 64630 (June 8, 2011), 76 FR 34783 (June 14, 2011)
(SR-NASDAQ-2011-074); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64858
(July 12, 2011), 76 FR 42152 (July 18, 2011) (SR-NASDAQ-2011-094).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\13\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\14\ which
requires that the rules of a national securities exchange provide for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities,
and with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest, and not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission
notes that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Notice, the Exchange represented that the low latency
network connections would be offered to market participants in a manner
that is not unfairly discriminatory.\16\ The Commission believes that
this program to offer low latency network connectivity, in the manner
described in the proposal, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) the
Exchange Act insofar as NASDAQ makes these connectivity options
uniformly available to all members who voluntarily request them and pay
the associated fees. Additionally, the Commission notes that members
may choose not to obtain low latency network connectivity through the
Exchange and instead negotiate connectivity options separately through
other vendors on site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, 76 FR at 70201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the associated fees, the Exchange represented that they
will be applied uniformly and will not unfairly discriminate between
similarly situated market participants that use such co-location
services.\17\ The Exchange also represented that the fees are
reasonable because, among other things, they enable the Exchange to
recoup its share of the costs associated with the proposed low latency
network telecommunication connections.\18\ The Exchange further
represented that the fees and associated costs of the co-location
services are comparable to the costs and fees associated with
comparable services offered by other trading venues.\19\ Finally, the
Exchange noted its expectation that this service will result in a
reduction in fees charged to market participants due to enhanced
competition.\20\ In light of the Exchange's representations, the
Commission believes that the fees associated with the low latency
network connection services are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the
Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id.
    \20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\21\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2011-146) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-33145 Filed 12-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 81 (Thursday, April 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22760-22764]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08892]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-8398; FMCSA-
2001-9258; FMCSA-2002-12432;FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2003-14223; FMCSA-
2003-14504; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20560;
FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2007-27515; FMCSA-2007-28695;
FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0174; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0340;
FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0114;
FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0287; FMCSA-2011-0124; FMCSA-2012-0104;
FMCSA-2012-0214; FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2013-0025; FMCSA-2013-0030;
FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0301; FMCSA-2014-0302;
FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2015-0350; FMCSA-2016-0206;
FMCSA-2016-0214; FMCSA-2017-0014; FMCSA-2017-0016; FMCSA-2018-0014;
FMCSA-2019-0004; FMCSA-2019-0005; FMCSA-2019-0008; FMCSA-2019-0009]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 59
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
requirements in one eye.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable 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 1,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5748, Docket No. FMCSA-
2000-7363, Docket No. FMCSA-2000-8398, Docket No. FMCSA-2001-9258,
Docket No. FMCSA-2002-12432, Docket No. FMCSA-2002-12844, Docket No.
FMCSA-2003-14223, Docket No. FMCSA-2003-14504, Docket No. FMCSA-2004-
17984, Docket No. FMCSA-2004-19477, Docket No. FMCSA-2005-20560, Docket
No. FMCSA-2006-26066, Docket No. FMCSA-2007-27333, Docket No. FMCSA-
2007-27515, Docket No. FMCSA-2007-28695, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0021,
Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0174, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0231, Docket No.
FMCSA-2008-0340, Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0398, Docket No. FMCSA-2009-
0054, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0082, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0114, Docket
No. FMCSA-2010-0187, Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0287, Docket No. FMCSA-2011-
0124, Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0104, Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0214, Docket
No. FMCSA-2013-0022, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0025, Docket No. FMCSA-2013-
0030, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0003, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0010, Docket
No. FMCSA-2014-0301, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0302, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-
0304, Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0305, Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0350, Docket
No. FMCSA-2016-0206, Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0214, Docket No. FMCSA-2017-
0014, Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0016, Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0014, Docket
No. FMCSA-2019-0004, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0005, Docket No. FMCSA-2019-
0008, or Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0009 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/,
insert the docket number, FMCSA-1999-5748, FMCSA-2000-7363, FMCSA-2000-
8398, FMCSA-2001-9258, FMCSA-2002-12432, FMCSA-2002-12844, FMCSA-2003-
14223, FMCSA-2003-14504, FMCSA-2004-17984, FMCSA-2004-19477, FMCSA-
2005-20560, FMCSA-2006-26066, FMCSA-2007-27333, FMCSA-2007-27515,
FMCSA-2007-28695, FMCSA-2008-0021, FMCSA-2008-0174, FMCSA-2008-0231,
FMCSA-2008-0340, FMCSA-2008-0398, FMCSA-2009-0054, FMCSA-2010-0082,
FMCSA-2010-0114, FMCSA-2010-0187, FMCSA-2010-0287, FMCSA-2011-0124,
FMCSA-2012-0104, FMCSA-2012-0214, FMCSA-2013-0022, FMCSA-2013-0025,
FMCSA-2013-0030, FMCSA-2014-0003, FMCSA-2014-0010, FMCSA-2014-0301,
FMCSA-2014-0302, FMCSA-2014-0304, FMCSA-2014-0305, FMCSA-2015-0350,
FMCSA-2016-0206, FMCSA-2016-0214, FMCSA-2017-0014, FMCSA-2017-0016,
FMCSA-2018-0014, FMCSA-2019-0004, FMCSA-2019-0005, FMCSA-2019-0008, or
FMCSA-2019-0009, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, sort
the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first notice
listed, and click on the

``Comment'' button. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-1999-5748; FMCSA-2000-7363; FMCSA-2000-8398;
FMCSA-2001-9258; FMCSA-2002-12432; FMCSA-2002-12844; FMCSA-2003-14223;
FMCSA-2003-14504; FMCSA-2004-17984; FMCSA-2004-19477; FMCSA-2005-20560;
FMCSA-2006-26066; FMCSA-2007-27333; FMCSA-2007-27515; FMCSA-2007-28695;
FMCSA-2008-0021; FMCSA-2008-0174; FMCSA-2008-0231; FMCSA-2008-0340;
FMCSA-2008-0398; FMCSA-2009-0054; FMCSA-2010-0082; FMCSA-2010-0114;
FMCSA-2010-0187; FMCSA-2010-0287; FMCSA-2011-0124; FMCSA-2012-0104;
FMCSA-2012-0214; FMCSA-2013-0022; FMCSA-2013-0025; FMCSA-2013-0030;
FMCSA-2014-0003; FMCSA-2014-0010; FMCSA-2014-0301; FMCSA-2014-0302;
FMCSA-2014-0304; FMCSA-2014-0305; FMCSA-2015-0350; FMCSA-2016-0206;
FMCSA-2016-0214; FMCSA-2017-0014; FMCSA-2017-0016; FMCSA-2018-0014;
FMCSA-2019-0004; FMCSA-2019-0005; FMCSA-2019-0008; FMCSA-2019-0009),
indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or
hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends
that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or
a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact
you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/, insert
the docket number, FMCSA-1999-5748, FMCSA-2000-7363, FMCSA-2000-8398,
FMCSA-2001-9258, FMCSA-2002-12432, FMCSA-2002-12844, FMCSA-2003-14223,
FMCSA-2003-14504, FMCSA-2004-17984, FMCSA-2004-19477, FMCSA-2005-20560,
FMCSA-2006-26066, FMCSA-2007-27333, FMCSA-2007-27515, FMCSA-2007-28695,
FMCSA-2008-0021, FMCSA-2008-0174, FMCSA-2008-0231, FMCSA-2008-0340,
FMCSA-2008-0398, FMCSA-2009-0054, FMCSA-2010-0082, FMCSA-2010-0114,
FMCSA-2010-0187, FMCSA-2010-0287, FMCSA-2011-0124, FMCSA-2012-0104,
FMCSA-2012-0214, FMCSA-2013-0022, FMCSA-2013-0025, FMCSA-2013-0030,
FMCSA-2014-0003, FMCSA-2014-0010, FMCSA-2014-0301, FMCSA-2014-0302,
FMCSA-2014-0304, FMCSA-2014-0305, FMCSA-2015-0350, FMCSA-2016-0206,
FMCSA-2016-0214, FMCSA-2017-0014, FMCSA-2017-0016, FMCSA-2018-0014,
FMCSA-2019-0004, FMCSA-2019-0005, FMCSA-2019-0008, or FMCSA-2019-0009
in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by
``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first notice listed, click the
``Comment'' button, and type your comment into the text box on the
following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an
individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-1999-5748, FMCSA-2000-7363, FMCSA-2000-8398, FMCSA-2001-
9258, FMCSA-2002-12432, FMCSA-2002-12844, FMCSA-2003-14223, FMCSA-2003-
14504, FMCSA-2004-17984, FMCSA-2004-19477, FMCSA-2005-20560, FMCSA-
2006-26066, FMCSA-2007-27333, FMCSA-2007-27515, FMCSA-2007-28695,
FMCSA-2008-0021, FMCSA-2008-0174, FMCSA-2008-0231, FMCSA-2008-0340,
FMCSA-2008-0398, FMCSA-2009-0054, FMCSA-2010-0082, FMCSA-2010-0114,
FMCSA-2010-0187, FMCSA-2010-0287, FMCSA-2011-0124, FMCSA-2012-0104,
FMCSA-2012-0214, FMCSA-2013-0022, FMCSA-2013-0025, FMCSA-2013-0030,
FMCSA-2014-0003, FMCSA-2014-0010, FMCSA-2014-0301, FMCSA-2014-0302,
FMCSA-2014-0304, FMCSA-2014-0305, FMCSA-2015-0350, FMCSA-2016-0206,
FMCSA-2016-0214, FMCSA-2017-0014, FMCSA-2017-0016, FMCSA-2018-0014,
FMCSA-2019-0004, FMCSA-2019-0005, FMCSA-2019-0008, or FMCSA-2019-0009
in the keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by
``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first notice listed, and click
``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access to the internet, you may
view the docket online by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140
on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

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

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum

duration of a driver's medical certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of 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 59 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the vision standard in Sec.  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 2-year period.

III. 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(b), FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

IV. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each of the 59
applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an
exemption from the vision standard (see 64 FR 40404, 64 FR 66962, 65 FR
45817, 65 FR 77066, 65 FR 78256, 66 FR 16311, 66 FR 17743, 66 FR 33990,
67 FR 10475, 67 FR 54525, 67 FR 68719, 67 FR 71610, 68 FR 2629, 68 FR
8794, 68 FR 10301, 68 FR 13360, 68 FR 19596, 68 FR 19598, 68 FR 33570,
68 FR 35772, 69 FR 26206, 69 FR 33997, 69 FR 61292, 69 FR 64806, 69 FR
64810, 69 FR 71100, 70 FR 2705, 70 FR 8659, 70 FR 12265, 70 FR 16886,
70 FR 17504, 70 FR 25878, 70 FR 30997, 70 FR 33937, 71 FR 26602, 71 FR
55820, 71 FR 63380, 72 FR 185, 72 FR 1050, 72 FR 1053, 72 FR 5489, 72
FR 11426, 72 FR 12666, 72 FR 18726, 72 FR 21313, 72 FR 25831, 72 FR
27624, 72 FR 28093, 72 FR 32703, 72 FR 32705, 72 FR 46261, 72 FR 54972,
73 FR 15567, 73 FR 27015, 73 FR 27017, 73 FR 38498, 73 FR 38499, 73 FR
46973, 73 FR 48273, 73 FR 54888, 73 FR 65009, 73 FR 75803, 73 FR 75806,
73 FR 76440, 74 FR 981, 74 FR 6207, 74 FR 6209, 74 FR 7097, 74 FR 8302,
74 FR 11988, 74 FR 11991, 74 FR 15584, 74 FR 15586, 74 FR 19270, 74 FR
20253, 74 FR 21427, 74 FR 23472, 74 FR 26464, 74 FR 60021, 75 FR 19674,
75 FR 25917, 75 FR 27621, 75 FR 34210, 75 FR 39727, 75 FR 39729, 75 FR
44051, 75 FR 47883, 75 FR 47888, 75 FR 52063, 75 FR 57105, 75 FR 63257,
75 FR 69737, 75 FR 77951, 75 FR 80887, 76 FR 1499, 76 FR 4413, 76 FR
4414, 76 FR 8809, 76 FR 11215, 76 FR 15361, 76 FR 17483, 76 FR 21796,
76 FR 25762, 76 FR 29026, 76 FR 32017, 76 FR 34135, 76 FR 34136, 76 FR
55463, 76 FR 70210, 77 FR 23797, 77 FR 27847, 77 FR 36338, 77 FR 38386,
77 FR 40945, 77 FR 46153, 77 FR 46793, 77 FR 52388, 77 FR 59245, 77 FR
60010, 77 FR 74730, 77 FR 74733, 77 FR 76167, 78 FR 797, 78 FR 12813,
78 FR 12815, 78 FR 12822, 78 FR 16761, 78 FR 18667, 78 FR 20376, 78 FR
22596, 78 FR 22602, 78 FR 26106, 78 FR 30954, 78 FR 32708, 78 FR 34140,
78 FR 34141, 78 FR 41975, 78 FR 56986, 78 FR 66099, 79 FR 14571, 79 FR
23797, 79 FR 28588, 79 FR 29495, 79 FR 37843, 79 FR 46153, 79 FR 46300,
79 FR 51642, 79 FR 51643, 79 FR 52388, 79 FR 64001, 79 FR 65760, 79 FR
72756, 79 FR 73689, 79 FR 74168, 80 FR 3305, 80 FR 3723, 80 FR 6162, 80
FR 12248, 80 FR 12547, 80 FR 14223, 80 FR 15859, 80 FR 16500, 80 FR
16502, 80 FR 20558, 80 FR 20562, 80 FR 22773, 80 FR 25766, 80 FR 26320,
80 FR 29149, 80 FR 29152, 80 FR 29154, 80 FR 33009, 80 FR 33011, 80 FR
45573, 80 FR 80443, 81 FR 14190, 81 FR 20435, 81 FR 28138, 81 FR 39100,
81 FR 60115, 81 FR 71173, 81 FR 72642, 81 FR 80161, 81 FR 81230, 81 FR
96165, 81 FR 96180, 81 FR 96196, 82 FR 12678, 82 FR 13043, 82 FR 13048,
82 FR 15277, 82 FR 17736, 82 FR 18818, 82 FR 18949, 82 FR 18954, 82 FR
22379, 82 FR 26224, 82 FR 28734, 82 FR 37499, 83 FR 28325, 83 FR 28332,
83 FR 33292, 83 FR 40638, 83 FR 53724, 83 FR 54644, 83 FR 56902, 84 FR
2311, 84 FR 2314, 84 FR 5550, 84 FR 10389, 84 FR 12665, 84 FR 16320, 84
FR 16327, 84 FR 16333, 84 FR 21393, 84 FR 21397, 84 FR 21401, 84 FR
23629, 84 FR 27688, 84 FR 47047). They have submitted evidence showing
that the vision in the better eye continues to meet the requirement
specified atSec.  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 2 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 2 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(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of June and
are discussed below. As of June 4, 2021, and in accordance with 49
U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following 53 individuals have
satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the
vision requirement in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (64 FR
40404, 64 FR 66962, 65 FR 45817, 65 FR 77066, 65 FR 78256, 66 FR 16311,
67 FR 10475, 67 FR 54525, 67 FR 68719, 67 FR 71610, 68 FR 2629, 68 FR
8794, 68 FR 10301, 68 FR 13360, 68 FR 19596, 68 FR 19598, 68 FR 33570,
69 FR 26206, 69 FR 33997, 69 FR 61292, 69 FR 64806, 69 FR 64810, 69 FR
71100, 70 FR 2705, 70 FR 8659, 70 FR 12265, 70 FR 16886, 70 FR 17504,
70 FR 25878, 70 FR 30997, 71 FR 26602, 71 FR 55820, 71 FR 63380, 72 FR
185, 72 FR 1050, 72 FR 1053, 72 FR 5489, 72 FR 11426, 72 FR 12666, 72
FR 18726, 72 FR 25831, 72 FR 27624, 72 FR 28093, 72 FR 46261, 72 FR
54972, 73 FR 15567, 73 FR 27015, 73 FR 27017, 73 FR 38498, 73 FR 38499,
73 FR 46973, 73 FR 48273, 73 FR 54888, 73 FR 65009, 73 FR 75803, 73 FR
75806, 73 FR 76440, 74 FR 981, 74 FR 6207, 74 FR 6209, 74 FR 7097, 74
FR 8302, 74 FR 11988, 74 FR 11991, 74 FR 15584, 74 FR 15586, 74 FR
19270, 74 FR 20253, 74 FR 21427, 74 FR 60021, 75 FR 19674, 75 FR 25917,
75 FR 27621, 75 FR 34210, 75 FR 39727, 75 FR 39729, 75 FR 44051, 75 FR
47883, 75 FR 47888, 75 FR 52063, 75 FR 57105, 75 FR 63257, 75 FR 69737,
75 FR 77951, 75 FR 80887, 76 FR 1499, 76 FR 4413, 76 FR 4414, 76 FR
8809, 76 FR 11215, 76 FR 15361, 76 FR 17483, 76 FR 21796, 76 FR 25762,
76 FR 29026, 76 FR 34136, 76 FR 55463, 76 FR 70210, 77 FR 23797, 77 FR
27847, 77 FR 36338, 77 FR 38386, 77 FR 40945, 77 FR 46153, 77 FR 46793,
77 FR 52388, 77 FR 59245, 77 FR 60010, 77 FR 74730, 77 FR 74733, 77 FR
76167, 78 FR 797, 78 FR 12813, 78 FR 12815, 78 FR 12822, 78 FR 16761,
78 FR 18667, 78 FR 22596, 78 FR 22602, 78 FR 26106, 78 FR 30954, 78 FR
41975, 78 FR 56986, 78 FR 66099, 79 FR 14571, 79 FR 23797, 79 FR 28588,
79 FR 29495, 79 FR 37843, 79 FR 46153, 79 FR 46300, 79 FR 51642, 79 FR
51643, 79 FR 52388, 79 FR 64001, 79 FR 65760, 79 FR 72756, 79 FR 73689,
79 FR 74168, 80 FR 3305, 80 FR 3723, 80 FR 6162, 80 FR 12248, 80 FR
12547, 80 FR 14223, 80 FR 15859, 80 FR 16500, 80 FR 16502, 80 FR 20558,
80 FR 20562, 80 FR 22773, 80 FR 25766, 80 FR 26320, 80 FR 29152,

80 FR 33011, 80 FR 45573, 80 FR 80443, 81 FR 14190, 81 FR 20435, 81 FR
28138, 81 FR 39100, 81 FR 60115, 81 FR 71173, 81 FR 72642, 81 FR 80161,
81 FR 81230, 81 FR 96165, 81 FR 96180, 81 FR 96196, 82 FR 12678, 82 FR
13043, 82 FR 13048, 82 FR 15277, 82 FR 17736, 82 FR 18818, 82 FR 18949,
82 FR 18954, 82 FR 22379, 82 FR 26224, 82 FR 28734, 83 FR 28325, 83 FR
28332, 83 FR 33292, 83 FR 40638, 83 FR 53724, 83 FR 54644, 83 FR 56902,
84 FR 2311, 84 FR 2314, 84 FR 5550, 84 FR 10389, 84 FR 12665, 84 FR
16320, 84 FR 16327, 84 FR 16333, 84 FR 21393, 84 FR 21397, 84 FR 21401,
84 FR 27688):

Vilas R. Adank (MN)
Lance S. Binner (MN)
Gary W. Brockway (IA)
Willie Burnett, Jr. (FL)
William R. Chisley (MD)
David R. Cox (OR)
Anthony C. Curtis (WA)
Terry J. Dare (IN)
Bryan K. DeBorde (WA)
Donald D. Dunphy (VA)
Lester M. Ellingson, Jr. (ND)
John K. Fank (IL)
Sean O. Feeny (FL)
Robert A. Ferrucci (FL)
Kelly L. Foster (UT)
Gilbert J. Graybill (OK)
Kelly M. Greene (FL)
William M. Hanes (OH)
Alan L. Helfer (IL)
William D. Holt (AZ)
George R. House (MO)
Arlan T. Hrubes (TX)
Lowell E. Jackson (MO)
Timothy L. Kelly (TX)
Kelly R. Konesky (AZ)
Craig M. Landry (LA)
Joseph A. Leigh, Jr. (NC)
Gene A. Lesher, Jr. (WV)
John Lucas (NC)
Jason E. Mallette (MS)
Roberto E. Martinez (WA)
Michael E. McAfee (KY)
John B. Middleton (OH)
Timothy L. Miller (IA)
Steven M. Montalbo (CA)
Dennis R. O'Dell, Jr. (OK)
Neville E. Owens (NC)
Jerry W. Parker (OH)
Eric D. Pohlmann (MN)
Daniel S. Rebstad (FL)
Daniel C. Reichert (GA)
Michael Renzetti (CT)
Myriam Rodriguez (CA)
James E. Russell (AZ)
James A. Smith (WA)
Randy G. Spilman (OH)
Nelson J. Stokke (CA)
Mark E. Studer (KS)
David Tavarez (NJ)
Steven M. Tewhill (AR)
Janusz Tyrpien (FL)
Donald Wallace (IL)
Raymond White (NC)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-1999-5748, FMCSA-
2000-7363, FMCSA-2000-8398, FMCSA-2002-12432, FMCSA-2002-12844, FMCSA-
2003-14223, FMCSA-2003-14504, FMCSA-2004-17984, FMCSA-2004-19477,
FMCSA-2005-20560, FMCSA-2006-26066, FMCSA-2007-27333, FMCSA-2007-28695,
FMCSA-2008-0021, FMCSA-2008-0174, FMCSA-2008-0231, FMCSA-2008-0340,
FMCSA-2008-0398, FMCSA-2009-0054, FMCSA-2010-0082, FMCSA-2010-0114,
FMCSA-2010-0187, FMCSA-2010-0287, FMCSA-2011-0124, FMCSA-2012-0104,
FMCSA-2012-0214, FMCSA-2013-0022, FMCSA-2013-0030, FMCSA-2014-0003,
FMCSA-2014-0010, FMCSA-2014-0301, FMCSA-2014-0302, FMCSA-2014-0304,
FMCSA-2014-0305, FMCSA-2015-0350, FMCSA-2016-0206, FMCSA-2016-0214,
FMCSA-2017-0014, FMCSA-2017-0016, FMCSA-2018-0014, FMCSA-2019-0004,
FMCSA-2019-0005, and FMCSA-2019-0008. Their exemptions are applicable
as of June 4, 2021, and will expire on June 4, 2023.
    As of June 6, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions
for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs
for interstate CMV drivers (78 FR 20376, 78 FR 34141, 80 FR 29149, 82
FR 22379, 84 FR 21397):

Enes Milanovic (MI)

    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0025. The
exemption is applicable as of June 6, 2021, and will expire on June 6,
2023.
    As of June 13, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions
for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs
for interstate CMV drivers (72 FR 21313, 72 FR 32703, 74 FR 23472, 76
FR 32017, 78 FR 32708, 80 FR 29154, 82 FR 37499, 84 FR 21397):

David K. Boswell (TN)

    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2007-27515. The
exemption is applicable as of June 13, 2021, and will expire on June
13, 2023.
    As of June 22, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following individual has satisfied the renewal conditions
for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in the FMCSRs
for interstate CMV drivers (84 FR 23629, 84 FR 47047):

Jerry L. Hofer (NM)

    The driver was included in docket number FMCSA-2019-0009. The
exemption is applicable as of June 22, 2021, and will expire on June
22, 2023.
    As of June 26, 2021, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the vision requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (66 FR 17743, 66 FR 33990, 68 FR
35772, 70 FR 33937, 72 FR 32705, 74 FR 26464, 76 FR 34135, 78 FR 34140,
80 FR 33009, 82 FR 37499, 84 FR 21397):

James P. Jones (ME); Larry J. Lang (MI); and David B. Speller (MN)
    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2001-9258. Their
exemptions are applicable as of June 26, 2021, and will expire on June
26, 2023.

V. 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 (ME), as defined by Sec.
390.5, who attests that the driver is otherwise physically qualified
under Sec.  391.41; (2) each driver must provide a copy of the
ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the ME at the time of the
annual medical examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of
the annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file or keep a copy of his/her driver's
qualification if he/her is self-employed. The driver must also have a
copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. 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(b).

VI. Preemption

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

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 59 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned

drivers from the vision requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(10), subject to
the requirements cited above. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), each exemption will be valid for two years unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-08892 Filed 4-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Method detection limits: application to organic environmental chemistry data Terry L. Wade, Jose L. Sericano, Yaorong Qian,

Gary Wolff, Guy Denoux.

Texas A& M University Geochemical and Environmental Research Group ° Understanding the sources, fate and effects of contaminants requires their detection at trace concentrations ( e. g. pg/ g) in difficult matrices.

° Determining analytes at trace concentrations requires great care and increases cost.

° Blank concentrations, matrix type, isolation techniques, and instrumental method effect detection.

° Interpretation of trace concentrations remains controversial. Introduction ° Questionable Detection.

° Limit of Detection ( LOD).

° Less Certain Quantitation.

° Limit of Quantitation ( LOQ).

° Quantification .

ACS Guidance Regions ° The LOD is defined as " the lowest concentration that can be determined to be different from a blank" ( Keith et. al., 1983).

° LOD = Blank Concentration + 3 SD e. g. LOD = 0.33 + 3( 0.10) = 0.63 ACS LOD ° The EPA method detection limit ( MDL) is defined as " the minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte" ( EPA., 1984).

° MDL = SD of 7 replicates X 3.14 ( Student t value for 99% confidence interval). EPA MDL ° Deuterated PAHs added as an internal standards.

° Dried samples extracted with methylene chloride.

° Extracts concentrated and exchanged into hexane.

° Isolated and purification by silica/ alumina column and size exclusion chromatography.

° Analysis by gas chromatography / mass selective detector selected ion mode ( GC/ MSD/ SIM) .

PAH Method PAH lowest calibration, LOD and MDL 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 1 7 19 2 1 23 25 PAHs Concentration (

ng/

g) MDL LOD Calib PAH lowest calibration, LOD and MDL 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 PAHs Concentration (

ng/

g) LOQ Calib PAH LOD Versus MDL 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 MDL LOD LOD > MDL LOD < MDL PAH Blank Versus LOD y = 1.865x + 0.054 R2 = 0.89 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 Blank LOD PAH Blank Versus MDL y = 0.17x + 0.06 R2 = 0.17 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 MDL Blank ° ACS LODs and EPA MDLs provide similar results.

° The LOD approach is simpler and less costly.

° Both the LOD and MDL were less than the lowest calibration standard for this study.

° Use of an Instrument Detection Limits ( IDL) or low level spiked blank should be investigated.

° Interpretation of trace concentrations will remain problematic in spite of the detection approach.

Conclusion


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 94384-94386]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-4342]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Application for Participation in the Food and Drug
Administration Regulatory Science Student Internship Program

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the application for participation in FDA's
Regulatory Science Student Internship Program (RSIP).

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by February 21, 2017.

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-2016-N-4342 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Application for Participation in
the FDA Regulatory Science Student Internship Program.'' 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A63, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Application for Participation in the FDA Regulatory Science Student
Internship Program--OMB Control Number 0910-New

    Sections 1104, 1302, 3301, 3304, 3320, 3361, 3393, and 3394 of
Title 5 of the United States Code, authorize Federal Agencies to rate
applicants for Federal jobs. Collecting applications for the RSIP will
allow FDA's Office of the Commissioner to easily and efficiently elicit
and review information from students and health care professionals who
are interested in becoming involved in FDA-wide activities. The process
will reduce the time and cost of submitting written documentation to
the Agency and lessen the likelihood of applications being misrouted
within the Agency mail system. It will assist the Agency in promoting
and protecting the public health by encouraging outside persons to
share their expertise with FDA.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                               Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                        Average
            Activity                 Number of     responses per   Total annual     burden per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Application.....................             600               1             600            1.33             798
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Dated: December 19, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-30967 Filed 12-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: March 23, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 56)]
[Notices]
[Page 13846-13847]
[DOCID:fr23mr07-136]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55490; File No. SR-NSCC-2007-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Securities Clearing
Corporation; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed
Rule Change Related to Fees Charged to the CDS Clearing and Depository
Services, Inc.

March 19, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on January 26, 2007, the
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which items have
been prepared primarily by NSCC. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change would permit NSCC, effective February 1,
2007, to cease to charge fees for ``Covered Services'' in ``Omnibus
Accounts'' (as each term is defined below) to the CDS Clearing and
Depository Services, Inc. (``CDS''), formerly the Canadian Depository
for Securities Ltd., in exchange for CDS agreeing not to charge NSCC
for such services.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') has submitted a
similar proposed rule change (File No. SR-DTC-2007-02).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NSCC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. NSCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified parts of these statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to facilitate the
efficient processing of cross-border securities transactions between
the U.S. and Canada. CDS is a participant in both NSCC and DTC. CDS
holds securities in the name of Cede & Co., DTC's nominee name, in one
or more omnibus accounts at DTC, and also has a clearance account at
NSCC (collectively the ``CDS Omnibus Accounts'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For purposes of this rule filing, the term ``CDS Omnibus
Accounts'' shall not include CDS's additional accounts established
pursuant to the Multiple Account Number Agreement, dated October 27,
2006 between CDS and NSCC and the Additional Account Agreement,
dated October 27, 2006 between DTC and CDS.

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

    CDS operates the New York Link Service, which enables CDS
Participants to clear and settle transactions with DTC Participants
through sponsored accounts maintained by CDS with DTC and NSCC. Through
such sponsored accounts, CDS Participants may clear and settle
transactions on a trade for trade basis or on a continuous net
settlement basis through the facilities of DTC and NSCC. DTC operates
the Canadian-Link Service, which enables DTC Participants to clear and
settle transactions with CDS Participants through an omnibus account
maintained by DTC at CDS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52784 (November 16,
2005), 70 FR 70902 (November 23, 2005) [File No. SR-DTC-2005-08].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to more efficiently facilitate cross-border clearance and
settlement DTC, NSCC, and CDS have agreed not to charge each other for
Covered Services \6\ in Omnibus Accounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Covered Services'' includes such services as: (a)
Messaging and conversion of messages, (b) clearing, (c) monthly
account charges, (d) deliveries/receives, (e) deposits and
withdrawals, (f) custody, (g) asset servicing (dividends,
reorganizations), (h) tax services, including U.S. and Canadian tax
withholding, as applicable, and non-U.S. Tax Relief and Foreign
Currency Payments via the Elective Dividend Service (EDS), (i)
communications/networking, (j) money settlement (and roll-up), (k)
reconciliation, and (l) any other services agreed to between DTC,
NSCC, and CDS in writing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, DTC, NSCC, and CDS charge fees in accordance with their
respective standard fee schedules for securities clearing, settlement,
and asset servicing in their respective Omnibus Accounts. The proposed
rule change would provide that instead of invoicing each other each
month for services in the Omnibus Accounts, DTC and NSCC will no longer
charge CDS for Covered Services in Omnibus Accounts in exchange for CDS
no longer charging DTC and NSCC for similar services. As most of the
activity processed in each of the Omnibus Accounts relates to
reciprocal services which are charged to DTC, NSCC, and CDS at
different rates (e.g., DTC would be charged in accordance with the
standard CDS fee schedule and vice versa) not charging each other for
Covered Services will ensure that the fees of NSCC and CDS are more
equitably aligned.
    DTC, NSCC, and CDS will continue to charge their respective
participants for activity in the Omnibus Accounts.
    This proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder because
it recognizes that most of the activity in the Omnibus Accounts
represents the processing of reciprocal activity in similar services
used by each of the entities which are charged to DTC, NSCC, and CDS at
different rates. As such, it provides for a more equitable allocation
of fees charged by DTC and NSCC.

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    NSCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. NSCC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by NSCC.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change changes fees charged clearing
members by NSCC, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \8\ thereunder. At
any time within sixty days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to
the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
) or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NSCC-2007-02 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2007-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of NSCC and on
NSCC's Web site at http://www.nscc.org.

    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NSCC-2007-02
and should be submitted on or before April 13, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5350 Filed 3-22-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P