[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 159 (Friday, August 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56675-56679]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17760]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98130; File No. SR-Phlx-2023-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Options 7,
Section 4 Regarding Qualified Contingent Cross Rebates

August 14, 2023.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 10, 2023, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx's Pricing Schedule at Options
7, Section 4, ``Multiply Listed Options Fees (Includes options
overlying equities, ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed)
(Excludes SPY and

broad-based index options symbols listed within Options 7, Section
5.A).'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On August 2, 2023, SR-Phlx-2023-32 was withdrawn and
replaced with SR-Phlx-2023-33. On August 10, 2023, SR-Phlx-2023-33
was withdrawn and replaced with the instant filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Phlx proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section
4, ``Multiply Listed Options Fees (Includes options overlying equities,
ETFs, ETNs and indexes which are Multiply Listed) (Excludes SPY and
broad-based index options symbols listed within Options 7, Section
5.A).'' Specifically, Phlx proposes to amend its Qualified Contingent
Cross (``QCC'') Rebates in Section A, and remove the expired QCC Growth
Tier Rebate in Section B of Options 7, Section 4.
    Today, the Exchange assesses a $.20 per contract QCC Transaction
Fee for a Lead Market Maker,\4\ Market Maker,\5\ Firm \6\ and Broker-
Dealer.\7\ Customers \8\ and Professionals \9\ are not assessed a QCC
Transaction Fee. QCC Transaction Fees apply to electronic QCC Orders
\10\ and Floor QCC Orders.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Lead Market Maker'' applies to transactions for
the account of a Lead Market Maker (as defined in Options 2, Section
12(a)). A Lead Market Maker is an Exchange member who is registered
as an options Lead Market Maker pursuant to Options 2, Section
12(a). An options Lead Market Maker includes a Remote Lead Market
Maker which is defined as an options Lead Market Maker in one or
more classes that does not have a physical presence on an Exchange
floor and is approved by the Exchange pursuant to Options 2, Section
11. See Options 7, Section 1(c). The term ``Floor Lead Market
Maker'' is a member who is registered as an options Lead Market
Maker pursuant to Options 2, Section 12(a) and has a physical
presence on the Exchange's trading floor. See Options 8, Section
2(a)(3).
    \5\ The term ``Market Maker'' is defined in Options 1, Section
1(b)(28) as a member of the Exchange who is registered as an options
Market Maker pursuant to Options 2, Section 12(a). A Market Maker
includes SQTs and RSQTs as well as Floor Market Makers. See Options
7, Section 1(c). The term ``Floor Market Maker'' is a Market Maker
who is neither an SQT or an RSQT. A Floor Market Maker may provide a
quote in open outcry. See Options 8, Section 2(a)(4).
    \6\ The term ``Firm'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Firm range at The Options Clearing Corporation. See Options 7,
Section 1(c).
    \7\ The term ``Broker-Dealer'' applies to any transaction which
is not subject to any of the other transaction fees applicable
within a particular category. See Options 7, Section 1(c).
    \8\ The term ``Customer'' applies to any transaction that is
identified by a member or member organization for clearing in the
Customer range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which
is not for the account of a broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Options 1, Section
1(b)(45)). See Options 7, Section 1(c).
    \9\ The term ``Professional'' applies to transactions for the
accounts of Professionals, as defined in Options 1, Section 1(b)(45)
means any person or entity that (i) is not a broker or dealer in
securities, and (ii) places more than 390 orders in listed options
per day on average during a calendar month for its own beneficial
account(s). See Options 7, Section 1(c).
    \10\ Electronic QCC Orders are described in Options 3, Section
12.
    \11\ Floor QCC Orders are described in Options 8, Section 30(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part A: QCC Rebates
    Today, in Part A of Options 7, Section 4, the Exchange describes
several QCC Rebates. Today, the Exchange pays a QCC Rebate of $0.12 per
contract on electronic QCC Orders, as defined in Options 3, Section 12,
and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in Options 8, Section 30(e), when a
QCC Order is comprised of a Customer or Professional order on one side
and a Lead Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on
the other side. Today, the Exchange also pays a rebate of $0.17 per
contract in the event that a member or member organization executes
greater than 1,000,000 qualifying QCC contracts in a given month.
Additionally, today, the Exchange pays a QCC Rebate of $0.14 per
contract on electronic QCC Orders, as defined in Options 3, Section 12,
and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in Options 8, Section 30(e), when a
QCC Order is comprised of a Lead Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-
Dealer, or Firm order on one side and a Lead Market Maker, Market
Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on the other side. Today, the
Exchange pays a rebate to $0.19 per contract in the event that a member
or member organization executes greater than 1,000,000 qualifying QCC
contracts in a given month.
    Today, these QCC rebates are paid on all qualifying executed
electronic QCC Orders, as defined in Options 3, Section 12, and Floor
QCC Orders, as defined in Options 8, Section 30(e), except where the
transaction is either: (i) Customer-to-Customer; (ii) Customer-to-
Professional; (iii) Professional-to-Professional or (iv) a dividend,
merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion, jelly roll, and
box spread strategy executions (as defined in Options 7, Section 4).
Further, today, volume resulting from all executed electronic QCC
Orders and Floor QCC Orders, including Customer-to-Customer, Customer-
to-Professional, and Professional-to-Professional transactions and
excluding dividend, merger, short stock interest or reversal or
conversion strategy executions, is aggregated in determining the
applicable member or member organization qualifying QCC contract volume
in a given month. Finally, today, members and member organizations are
entitled to one QCC Rebate in a given month, which would be the greater
of the QCC Rebate in Section A or the QCC Growth Tier Rebate in Section
B in a given month, but not both.
Proposal
    At this time, the Exchange proposes to offer two QCC Rebates in
addition to the current QCC Rebates described above. The Exchange
proposes to pay a rebate of $0.22 per contract, when a QCC Order is
comprised of a Customer or Professional order on one side and a Lead
Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on the other
side, in the event that a member or member organization executes (1)
greater than 1,000,000 qualifying QCC contracts in a given month; (2)
Floor Originated Strategy \12\ Executions in excess of 3,500,000
contracts in a given month; and (3) at least 40% of the member or
member organization's QCC executed contracts in that month are
comprised of a Lead Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm
order on one side and Lead Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer,
or Firm order on the other side.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Floor Originated Strategy Executions are defined as a
dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and conversion,
jelly roll or box spread strategy as described in Options 7, Section
4. The Exchange proposes to add this defined term in the Pricing
Schedule at Part A of Options 7, Section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to pay a rebate of $0.27 per
contract, when a QCC Order is comprised of a Lead Market Maker, Market
Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on one side and a Lead Market
Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on

the other side, in the event that a member or member organization
executes: (1) greater than 1,000,000 qualifying QCC contracts in a
given month; (2) Floor Originated Strategy Executions in excess of
3,500,000 contracts in a given month and (3) at least 40% of the member
or member organization's QCC executed contracts in that month are
comprised of a Lead Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm
order on one side and Lead Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer,
or Firm order on the other side.
    Additionally, the Exchange would continue to pay QCC Rebates on all
qualifying executed electronic QCC Orders, as defined in Options 3,
Section 12, and Floor QCC Orders, as defined in Options 8, Section
30(e), except where the transaction is either: (i) Customer-to-
Customer; (ii) Customer-to-Professional; (iii) Professional-to-
Professional; or (iv) a dividend, merger, short stock interest,
reversal and conversion, jelly roll, and box spread strategy executions
(as defined in Options 7, Section 4). Also, the Exchange would continue
to aggregate volume resulting from all executed electronic QCC Orders
and Floor QCC Orders, including Customer-to-Customer, Customer-to-
Professional, and Professional-to-Professional transactions and
excluding dividend, merger, short stock interest, reversal and
conversion, jelly roll, and box spread strategy executions, in
determining the applicable member or member organization qualifying QCC
contract volume in a given month.
    Finally, the Exchange currently only permits member and member
organizations to receive either the QCC Rebate in Section A or the QCC
Growth Tier Rebate in Section B in a given month, but not both. The
Exchange is removing this rule text from the Pricing Schedule because
the QCC Growth Tier Rebate pricing was only available until July 31,
2023 as explained further below. The Exchange also proposes to remove
the Part ``A'' reference as there is no longer a Part B.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed QCC Rebates in Part A will
encourage Phlx members and member organizations to transact a greater
number of QCC Orders on the Exchange.
Part B: QCC Growth Tier Rebate
    The Exchange offered a QCC Growth Tier Rebate \13\ to encourage
Phlx members and member organizations to transact a greater number of
QCC Orders on Phlx. The QCC Growth Tier Rebate expired on July 31,
2023. The Exchange proposes to remove the pricing from the Pricing
Schedule at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The QCC Growth Tier Rebate permitted Phlx members and
member organizations to qualify for certain rebates by executing a
certain amount of floor transactions, electronic QCC Orders and
Floor QCC Orders volume in excess of the member's or member
organization's QCC transaction volume in January 2023. The Exchange
also offered an alternative qualification to achieve the QCC Growth
Tier Rebate by executing transactions in open outcry along with QCC
volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ 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, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their
preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining
prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation
NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market
model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in
determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current
regulation of the market system ``has been remarkably successful in
promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most
important to investors and listed companies.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005),
70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Likewise, in NetCoalition v. Securities and Exchange Commission
\17\ (``NetCoalition'') the D.C. Circuit upheld the Commission's use of
a market-based approach in evaluating the fairness of market data fees
against a challenge claiming that Congress mandated a cost-based
approach.\18\ As the court emphasized, the Commission ``intended in
Regulation NMS that `market forces, rather than regulatory
requirements' play a role in determining the market data . . . to be
made available to investors and at what cost.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ NetCoalition v. SEC, 615 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
    \18\ See NetCoalition, at 534-535.
    \19\ Id. at 537.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, ``[n]o one disputes that competition for order flow is
`fierce.' . . . As the SEC explained, `[i]n the U.S. national market
system, buyers and sellers of securities, and the broker-dealers that
act as their order-routing agents, have a wide range of choices of
where to route orders for execution'; [and] `no exchange can afford to
take its market share percentages for granted' because `no exchange
possesses a monopoly, regulatory or otherwise, in the execution of
order flow from broker dealers'. . . .'' \20\ Although the court and
the SEC were discussing the cash equities markets, the Exchange
believes that these views apply with equal force to the options
markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Id. at 539 (quoting Securities Exchange Act Release No.
59039 (December 2, 2008), 73 FR 74770, 74782-83 (December 9, 2008)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-21)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to offer two new QCC Rebates in Section A
of Options 7, Section 4,\21\ in addition to the current QCC Rebates, is
reasonable because the proposed QCC Rebates will encourage Phlx members
and member organizations to transact a greater number of qualifying QCC
contracts and Floor Originated Strategy Executions on Phlx. The
proposal would pay a new rebate of $0.22 per contract, when a QCC Order
is comprised of a Customer or Professional order on one side and a Lead
Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on the other
side, and the proposal would pay a new higher rebate of $0.27 per
contract, when the QCC Order is comprised of a Lead Market Maker,
Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on one side and a Lead
Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on the other
side. The Exchange believes that the higher rebate of $0.27 per
contract, when the QCC Order is comprised of a Lead Market Maker,
Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on one side and a Lead
Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on the other
side, is reasonable because the Exchange assesses a QCC Transaction Fee
of $0.20 per contract on Lead Market Makers, Market Makers, Firms and
Broker- Dealers and does not assess a QCC Transaction Fee on Customers
and Professionals. The third qualification,

which requires that 40% of the QCC executed contracts to have a Lead
Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm on each side of the
transaction, will assist the Exchange in funding the higher $0.27 per
contract QCC Rebate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange proposes to pay a rebate of $0.22 per
contract, when a QCC Order is comprised of a Customer or
Professional order on one side and a Lead Market Maker, Market
Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on the other side, in the event
that a member or member organization both executes greater than
1,000,000 qualifying QCC contracts in a given month and executes
Floor Originated Strategy Executions in excess of 3,500,000
contracts in a given month. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to
pay a $0.27 per contract, when a QCC Order is comprised of a Lead
Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on one side
and a Lead Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order
on the other side, in the event that a member or member organization
both executes greater than 1,000,000 qualifying QCC contracts in a
given month and executes Floor Originated Strategy Executions in
excess of 3,500,000 contracts in a given month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to offer two new QCC Rebates in Section A
of Options 7, Section 4,\22\ in addition to the current QCC Rebates, is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all members and
member organizations may qualify for QCC Rebates, provided they
transact the requisite volume. The Exchange believes that the higher
rebate of $0.27 per contract, when the QCC Order is comprised of a Lead
Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on one side
and a Lead Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on
the other side, is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because
the Exchange assesses a QCC Transaction Fee of $0.20 per contract for
Lead Market Makers, Market Makers, Firms and Broker-Dealers and does
not assess a QCC Transaction Fee on Customers and Professionals. The
proposed rebate of $0.22 per contract, when a QCC Order is comprised of
a Customer or Professional order on one side and a Lead Market Maker,
Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on the other side, is lower
as compared to the $0.27 per contract rebate because Customers and
Professionals do not pay a QCC Transaction Fee whereas Lead Market
Makers, Market Makers, Broker-Dealers, and Firms pay a $0.20 per
contract QCC Transaction Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to remove the pricing for the QCC Growth
Tier Rebate in Section B of Options 7, Section 4 as well as the rule
text concerning receiving either the QCC Rebate in Section A or the QCC
Growth Tier Rebate in Section B in a given month, but not both, is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because as noted
in the Pricing Schedule, the QCC Growth Tier Rebate pricing was only
available until July 31, 2023. This pricing is no longer available.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Inter-Market Competition
    The proposal does not impose an undue burden on inter-market
competition. The Exchange believes its proposal remains competitive
with other options markets and will offer market participants with
another choice of where to transact options. The Exchange notes that it
operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants
can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at
other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in
response, and because market participants may readily adjust their
order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which
fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is
extremely limited.
Intra-Market Competition
    The proposed amendments do not impose an undue burden on intra-
market competition. In terms of intra-market competition, the
Exchange's proposal to offer two new QCC Rebates in Section A of
Options 7, Section 4,\23\ in addition to the current QCC Rebates, does
not impose an undue burden on competition because all members and
member organizations may qualify for QCC Rebates, provided they
transact the requisite volume. The Exchange believes that the higher
rebate of $0.27 per contract, when the QCC Order is comprised of a Lead
Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on one side
and a Lead Market Maker, Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on
the other side, does not impose an undue burden on competition because
the Exchange assesses a QCC Transaction Fee of $0.20 per contract for
Lead Market Makers, Market Makers, Firms and Broker-Dealers and does
not assess a QCC Transaction Fee on Customers and Professionals. The
proposed rebate of $0.22 per contract, when a QCC Order is comprised of
a Customer or Professional order on one side and a Lead Market Maker,
Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, or Firm order on the other side, is lower
as compared to the $0.27 per contract rebate because Customers and
Professionals do not pay a QCC Transaction Fee whereas Lead Market
Makers, Market Makers, Broker-Dealers, and Firms pay a $0.20 per
contract QCC Transaction Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to remove the pricing for the QCC Growth
Tier Rebate in Section B of Options 7, Section 4, as well as the rule
text concerning receiving either the QCC Rebate in Section A or the QCC
Growth Tier Rebate in Section B in a given month, but not both, does
not impose an undue burden on competition because, as noted in the
Pricing Schedule, the QCC Growth Tier Rebate pricing was only available
until July 31, 2023. This pricing is no longer available.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
file number SR-Phlx-2023-36 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to file number SR-Phlx-2023-36. This file

number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
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. Do not
include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We
may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted
material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All
submissions should refer to file number SR-Phlx-2023-36 and should be
submitted on or before September 8, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-17760 Filed 8-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2323-2325]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01264]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0209]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 11 individuals
for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will
enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without
meeting the vision requirement in one eye.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0209 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0209), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0209, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2018-0209, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and
choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Privacy Act

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

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds such exemption would
likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater
than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The
statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end

of the five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a
two-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's
medical certification.
    The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal Meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber.
    In July 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the
Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting
standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to
meet (Qualification of Drivers; Vision Waivers, 57 FR 31458, July 16,
1992). The current Vision Exemption Program was established in 1998,
following the enactment of amendments to the statutes governing
exemptions made by Sec.  4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9,
1998). Vision exemptions are considered under the procedures
established in 49 CFR part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon
application by CMV drivers who do not meet the vision standards of 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past
three years. Recent driving performance is especially important in
evaluating future safety, according to several research studies
designed to correlate past and future driving performance. Results of
these studies support the principle that the best predictor of future
performance by a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic
violations. Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-
1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving
performance of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better
than that of all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345,
March 26, 1996). The fact that experienced monocular drivers
demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program supports a
conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying
conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also likely to
have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to operate
safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used three consecutive
years of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first two
years with their experiences in the final year.

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Manuel Gonzalez

    Mr. Gonzalez, 47, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and
in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2018,
his ophthalmologist stated, ``The patient has good vision in his right
eye and should be able to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Gonzalez reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating 640,000 miles. He holds an
operator's license from Illinois. His driving record for the last three
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Henry J. Hughes

    Mr. Hughes, 59, has had exotropia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
200. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated, ``Henry
does have adequate vision for driving a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Hughes reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years,
accumulating 250,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 31
years, accumulating 3.1 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Minnesota. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Frederick L. McCurry

    Mr. McCurry, 58, has a macular scar in his right eye due to
toxoplasmosis in 1974. The visual acuity in his right eye is light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2018, his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion, this patient has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle according to federal regulations.'' Mr. McCurry
reported that he has driven straight trucks for two years, accumulating
1,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 20 years,
accumulating 500,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from Virginia. His
driving record for the last three years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Luis M. Perez-Francisco

    Mr. Perez-Francisco, 33, has a chorioretinal scar in his left eye
due to toxoplasmosis in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/150. Following an examination in
2018, his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion, the patient has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Perez-Francisco reported that he has driven
straight trucks for six years, accumulating 90,480 miles. He holds an
operator's license from New Jersey. His driving record for the last
three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Emmanuel A. Sepulveda

    Mr. Sepulveda, 32, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The

visual acuity in his right eye is counting fingers, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist stated,
``I certify in my professional opinion, Mr. Sepulveda has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Sepulveda reported that he has driven straight trucks
for two years, accumulating 60,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for three years, accumulating 216,000 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from California. His driving record for the last three
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Martin Serrano

    Mr. Serrano, 58, has had a chorioretinal scar in his right eye
since 1993. The visual acuity in his right eye is counting fingers, and
in his left eye, 20/40. Following an examination in 2018, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``The patient has sufficient vision to perform
the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Serrano reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 30
years, accumulating 420,000 miles. He holds a class A CDL from
Illinois. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Kirby L. Sundet

    Mr. Sundet, 46, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye,
counting fingers. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist
stated, ``After passing all testing requirements, it is my opinion that
Mr. Sundet can safely operate commercial vehicles and I recommend he be
given a waiver to operate commercial vehicles.'' Mr. Sundet reported
that he has driven straight trucks for five years, accumulating 500,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for
the last three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Karl M. Vanderstucken

    Mr. Vanderstucken, 56, has a prosthetic right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1995. The visual acuity in his right eye is no
light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2018, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my professional opinion the
patient has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicles [sic]
driving task as required.'' Mr. Vanderstucken reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 26 years, accumulating 2.34 million miles.
He holds a Class B CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last
three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Nyrone Whyte

    Mr. Whyte, 29, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to
a traumatic incident in 1998. The visual acuity in his right eye is no
light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination
in 2018, his optometrist stated, ``Mr. Whyte has met the vision
criteria for driving a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Whyte reported that he
has driven straight trucks for seven years, accumulating 259,000. He
holds a Class A CDL from Connecticut. His driving record for the last
three years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Byron L. Wright

    Mr. Wright, 57, has had a hamartoma in his left eye since 1991. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200.
Following an examination in 2018, his ophthalmologist stated, ``I
believe he has sufficient vision to safely drive a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Wright reported that he has driven straight trucks for
35 years, accumulating 960,960 miles. He holds an operator's license
from Delaware. His driving record for the last three years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Bradford C. Zipse

    Mr. Zipse, 54, has a retinal scar in his left eye due to an
infection in 2007. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in
his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2018, his optometrist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Zipse has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Zipse reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years,
accumulating 750,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Wisconsin. His driving record for the last three years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

IV. Request for Comments

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

    Issued on: January 30, 2019.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-01264 Filed 2-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


TO: Docket EPA OAR 2005 0117 FROM: Walt Stevenson RE: German MWCs / Particulate Matter and Mercury CEMS Data One can review real time particulate matter ( Staub) and mercury CEMS data for a German MWC plant at the following Web site: www. gsb mbh. de . By clicking on the emissions data ( Emissionsdaten) icon on the right, the half hour average ( Halbstundenmittelwerte) and daily average ( Tagesmittelwerte) values for combustion lines 2 or 3 ( Verbrennungslinie 2 and 3 respectively) may be selected from the box in the upper right of the webpage . The current ( aktuell) day or month data is displayed as a default for the half hour and daily average data, respectively. Emissions data from prior days or months may be viewed by clicking on the green triangle at the top of the data page .


[Federal Register: December 18, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 67205]
[DOCID:fr18de09-59]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-354-000]

Starion Energy, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

December 10, 2009.

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Starion Energy, Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is December 30, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30069 Filed 12-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P