[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 8, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19758-19760]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05912]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10006-17-OMS]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records

AGENCY: Office of Mission Support, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).

ACTION: Notice of a modified system of records.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of
Inspector General (OIG) is giving notice that it proposes to modify an
existing system of records, pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy
Act of 1974. Inspector General Enterprise Management System (IGEMS)
Audit, Assignment, and Timesheet Modules is being modified to change
the name of the system from Inspector General Enterprise Management
System (IGEMS) Audit, Assignment, and Timesheet Modules to Inspector
General Enterprise Management System (IGEMS) Audits, Assignments, and
Project Management Actuals Modules. The module is modifying point of
contact, system location, retention and disposal, system manager and
address, method of retrieval, notification procedures, and the
inclusion of the new routine uses identified per OMB M-17-12.

DATES: Persons wishing to comment on this system of records notice must
do so by May 8, 2020. New or Modified routine uses for this modified
system of records will be effective May 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OEI-2011-0359, by one of the following methods:
    Regulations.gov: www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
    Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: OMS Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: OMS Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OEI-
2011-0359. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) or other information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CUI or otherwise protected through
www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous
access'' system for EPA, which means the EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. Each agency determines submission requirements within
their own internal processes and standards. EPA has no requirement of
personal information. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through www.regulations.gov your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public

docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CUI or other information
for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the OMS
Docket, EPA/DC, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OMS Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie L. Wright, Acting Deputy
Assistant Inspector General for Management,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    The EPA OIG is giving notice that it intends to modify an existing
system of records. The Inspector General Enterprise Management System
(IGEMS) Audit, Assignment, and Timesheet Modules will be changed to
Inspector General Enterprise Management System (IGEMS) Audits,
Assignments, and Project Management Actuals Modules. The module is
modifying point of contact, system location, retention and disposal,
system manager and address, method of retrieval, and notification
procedures. The System assists the OIG planning and managing audits,
evaluations, investigations and other OIG activities. The privacy of
individuals is protected through user authentication and system roles,
permissions, and privileges. The system is operated and maintained by
the Office of Inspector General, Office of Management, Information
Technology Directorate (OM-ITD).

System Name and Number:
    Inspector General Enterprise Management System (IGEMS) Audits,
Assignment and Project Management Actuals Modules. EPA-42.

Security Classification:
    Unclassified.

System Location:
    Office of Inspector General, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.

System Manager(s):
    USEPA, Office of Management (Mail code 2410T), 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, Attn: Assistant Inspector General for
Management. Tel Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Authority for Maintenance of the System:
    Inspector General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. app. 3.

Purpose of the System:
    To assist the OIG in planning and managing audits, evaluations,
investigations, and other OIG activities. The ``Timesheets'' module is
renamed to the Project Management Actuals (PMA) module. Planning and
managing of projects is accomplished using assignment hours posted
against the projects by individuals in OIG.

Categories of Individuals Covered by the System:
    Office of Inspector General (OIG) employees; individuals who
request audits; names of individual auditees.

Categories of Records in the System:
    Incoming audit requests, assignment sheets and reports, incoming
special project requests, and memorandums or briefing materials, and
OIG employee project management actuals which identify time spent on
individual projects.

Record Source Categories:
    Record subject, OIG supervisors, and other EPA employees.

Routine Uses of Records Maintained in the System, including Categories
of Users and Purposes of Such Uses:
    The following new routine uses apply to this system because the use
of the record is necessary for the efficient conduct of government
operations. The routine uses are related to and compatible with the
original purpose for which the information was collected. General
routine uses A, B, C, D E, F, G, H, I, J, and K apply to this system
(73 FR 2245). Records may also be disclosed:
    1. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the
Agency suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the
system of records, (2) the Agency has determined that as a result of
the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to
individuals, the Agency (including its information systems, programs,
and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, and (3)
the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is
reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Agency's efforts
to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent,
minimize, or remedy such harm.
    2. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the Agency
determines that information from this system of records is reasonably
necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to
a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or
remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or
entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations),
the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a
suspected or confirmed breach.

Policies and Practices for Storage of Records:
    In accordance with OIG Records Management Policy, computer records
are maintained in a secure, password protected computer system. Paper
records are maintained in lockable file cabinets. All records are
maintained in secure, access-controlled areas or buildings.

Policies and Practices for Retrieval of Records:
    Audits in the Assignments and Project Management Actuals Modules of
the Inspector General Enterprise Management System (IGEMS) are
retrieved by assignment number, audit report number, the name of the
assigned OIG auditor, or the name of the audit requestor.

Policies and Practices for Retention and Disposal of Records:
    Records stored in this system are subject to EPA Records Schedule
1016, which covers records related to operations and programs of the
EPA and its external business partners that ensure compliance with
applicable laws and regulations and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

Administrative, Technical, and Physical Safeguards:
    Computer records are maintained in a secure, password protected
computer system. All records are maintained in secure, access-
controlled areas or buildings. The IGEMS Assignment and Project
Management Actuals (PMA) Modules are restricted to the staff of EPA
OIG. Roles and permissions are based on either position of the
employee, project membership or based on approved requests. The modules
are found in IGEMS. IGEMS is accessible to EPA OIG employees only. It
is an internal database accessible by use of strong passwords, which
are renewed on a regular basis, and automated locking of screens after
a defined number of minutes are enforced.

Record Access Procedures:
    Persons seeking access to their own personal information in this
system of records will be required to provide adequate identification
(e.g., driver's license, military identification card, employee badge
or identification card). Additional identity verification procedures
may be required as warranted. Requests must meet the requirements of
EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 16.

Contesting Record Procedures:
    Requests for correction or amendment must identify the record to be
changed and the corrective action sought. Complete EPA Privacy Act
procedures are set out in EPA's Privacy Act regulations at 40 CFR part
16.

Notification Procedure:
    Requests to determine whether this system of records contains a
record pertaining to you must be sent to the Agency's Privacy Officer
at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
(2831T) Washington, DC 20460;<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email: (privacy@epa.gov);
Attn: Privacy Officer.

Exemptions Promulgated for the System:
    None.

History:
    76 FR 42706--Amend an existing system of records by changing the
name of the system from the Inspector General Operations & Reporting
(IGOR) System Audit, Assignment, and Timesheet Files (EPA-42) to the
Inspector General Enterprise Management System (IGEMS) Audit,
Assignment, and Timesheet Modules.
    66 FR 49950--Established the Inspector General's Operation and
Reporting (IGOR) System Audit, Assignment and Timesheet Files. The
system is maintained by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG). Its
purpose is to assist the OIG in planning audits, investigations, and
other operations of the OIG; monitoring OIG performance of its
activities; and reporting results.

    Dated: February 3, 2020.
Vaughn Noga,
Senior Agency Official for Privacy.
[FR Doc. 2020-05912 Filed 4-7-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24458-24461]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09711]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69392; File No. SR-BX-2013-030]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Routing Fees

April 18, 2013.
    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 April 9, 2013, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' 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 Chapter XV, Section 2 entitled ``BX
Options Market--Fees and Rebates'' to amend various fees for routing
options to away markets.
    While these amendments are effective upon filing, the Exchange has
designated the proposed amendments to be operative on May 1, 2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to recoup costs that the Exchange
incurs for routing and executing certain orders in equity options to
away markets. Today, the Exchange assesses Non-Customers a flat rate of
$0.95 per contract on all Non-Customer orders routed to any away market
and the Exchange assesses Customer orders a fixed fee plus the actual
transaction fee dependent on the away market. Specifically, the
Exchange assesses Customer orders routed to The NASDAQ Options Market
LLC (``NOM'') and NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') '') [sic] a fixed fee
of $0.05 per contract in addition to the actual transaction fee
assessed by the away market. The Exchange assesses Customer orders
routed to all other away markets, except NOM and PHLX, a fixed fee of
$0.11 per contract in addition to the actual transaction fee assessed
by the away market, unless the away market pays a rebate, then the
Routing Fee is $0.00.
    The fixed fees are based on costs that are incurred by the Exchange
when routing to an away market in addition to the away market's
transaction fee. For example, the Exchange incurs a fee when it
utilizes Nasdaq Options Services LLC (``NOS''), a member of the
Exchange and the Exchange's exclusive order router,\3\ to route orders
in options listed and open for trading to destination markets. Each
time NOS routes to away markets NOS incurs a clearing-related cost \4\
and, in the case of certain exchanges, a transaction fee is also
charged in certain symbols, which fees are passed through to the
Exchange. The Exchange also incurs administrative and technical costs
associated with operating NOS, membership fees at away markets, Options
Regulatory Fees (``ORFs'') and technical costs associated with routing
options. For Customer orders, the transaction fee assessed by the
Exchange is based on the away market's actual transaction fee or rebate
for a particular market participant at the time that the order was
entered into the Exchange's trading system. This transaction fee is
calculated on an order-by-order basis for Customer orders, since
different away markets charge different amounts. In the event that
there is no transaction fee or rebate assessed by the away market, the
only fee assessed is the fixed Routing Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See BX Rules at Chapter VI, Section 11(e) (Order Routing).
    \4\ The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') assesses a
clearing fee of $0.01 per contract side. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 68025 (October 10, 2012), 77 FR 63398 (October 16, 2012)
(SR-OCC-2012-18).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the Routing Fees to all other
options exchanges, except NOM and PHLX, to increase the fixed fee from
$0.11 to $0.15 per contract.\5\ The Exchange currently does not recoup
all of its costs to route to away markets other than NOM and PHLX. As
mentioned herein, the Exchange incurs costs when routing to away
markets including away market transaction fees, ORFs, clearing fees,
Section 31 related fees, connectivity and membership fees. The Exchange
is not recouping its costs currently with the $0.11 per contract fixed
fee and proposes to increase the fixed fee to $0.15 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange is not proposing to amend Non-Customer Routing
Fees or Routing Fees for Customer orders routed to NOM or PHLX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    BX believes that its proposal to amend its pricing is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among
its Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee to
other away markets, other than NOM and PHLX, from a fixed fee of $0.11
to $0.15 per contract, in addition to the actual transaction fee, is
reasonable because the proposed fixed fee for Customer orders is an
approximation of the costs the Exchange will be charged for routing
orders to away markets. For example, today, NYSE MKT LLC (``Amex'')
does not assess a Customer transaction fee.\8\ Today, the Exchange
would therefore assess a Customer order that was routed to Amex an
$0.11 per contract Routing Fee. The Exchange's effective per contract
expenses to route to Amex which include the ORF, OCC clearing charges,
Section 31 related fees, connectivity and membership fees, are not
covered by the $0.11 per contract and are slightly higher than the
$0.15 per contract. As a general matter, the Exchange believes that the
proposed fees will allow it to recoup and cover its costs of providing
optional routing services for Customer orders because it better
approximates the costs incurred by the Exchange for routing such
orders. While, each destination market's transaction charge varies and
there is a cost incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away
markets, including OCC clearing costs, administrative and technical
costs associated with operating NOS, membership fees at away markets,
ORFs and technical costs associated with routing options, the Exchange
believes that the proposed Routing Fees will enable it to recover the
costs it incurs to route Customer orders to away markets. Today, the
Exchange is paying a higher average cost per contract to route Customer
orders to away markets, other than NOM and PHLX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Amex's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed pricing for Customer
Routing Fees to all other away markets, except NOM and PHLX, is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would
assess the same fixed fee when routing orders to an away market in
addition to the away market transaction fee. The proposal would apply
uniformly to all market participants when routing to an away market
that pays a rebate. Market participants may submit orders to the
Exchange as ineligible for routing or

``DNR'' to avoid Routing Fees.\9\ It is important to note that when
orders are routed to an away market they are routed based on price
first.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See BX Rules at Chapter VI, Section 11(e) (Order Routing).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to continue to
not assess a Customer Routing Fee when routing to all other options
exchanges, except NOM and PHLX, if the away market pays a rebate. The
Exchange will continue to assess a fixed fee, which fee is being
increased with this proposal, plus the actual transaction charge
assessed by the away market when routing to all other options
exchanges, except NOM and PHLX, unless the away market pays a rebate.
The Exchange would continue to not assess a Routing Fee if the away
market pays a rebate because the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
retain the rebate to offset the Routing Fee. The Exchange believes that
market participants will have more certainty as to the Customer Routing
Fee that will be assessed by the Exchange by simply not assessing a
Routing Fee for Customer orders routed to away markets, other than NOM
and PHLX, that pay a rebate.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to continue to assess Customer orders that are
routed to NOM and PHLX a fixed fee of $0.05 per contract and orders
that are routed to other away markets, other than NOM and PHLX, a fixed
fee of $0.15 per contract because the cost, in terms of actual cash
outlays, to the Exchange to route to NOM and PHLX is lower. For
example, costs related to routing to PHLX are materially lower as
compared to other away markets because NOS is utilized by all three
exchanges to route orders.\11\ NOS and the three NASDAQ OMX options
markets have a common data center and staff that are responsible for
the day-to-day operations of NOS. Because the three exchanges are in a
common data center, Routing Fees are reduced because costly expenses
related to, for example, telecommunication lines to obtain connectivity
are avoided when routing orders in this instance. The costs related to
connectivity to route orders to other NASDAQ OMX exchanges are de
minimis. When routing orders to non-NASDAQ OMX exchanges, the Exchange
incurs costly connectivity charges related to telecommunication lines
and other related costs. The Exchange believes it is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to pass along savings
realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's infrastructure and scale to market
participants when those orders are routed to BX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Chapter VI, Section 11 of the NASDAQ and BX Options
Rules and PHLX Rule 1080(m)(iii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to assess different fees for Customers
orders as compared to non-Customer orders because the Exchange has
traditionally assessed lower fees to Customers as compared to non-
Customers. Customers will continue to receive the lowest fees or no
fees when routing orders, as is the case today. Other options exchanges
also assess lower Routing Fees for customer orders as compared to non-
customer orders.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ BATS assesses lower customer routing fees as compared to
non-customer routing fees per the away market. For example BATS
assesses ISE customer routing fees of $0.30 per contract and an ISE
non-customer routing fee of $0.57 per contract. See BATS BZX
Exchange Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposal creates a burden on intra-market competition because
the Exchange is applying the same Routing Fees and credits to all
market participants in the same manner dependent on the routing venue,
with the exception of Customers. The Exchange will continue to assess
separate Customer Routing Fees. Customers will continue to receive the
lowest fees or no fees when routing orders, as is the case today. Other
options exchanges also assess lower Routing Fees for customer orders as
compared to non-customer orders.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal would allow the Exchange to continue to
recoup its costs when routing orders to away markets when such orders
are designated as available for routing by the market participant. The
Exchange continues to pass along savings realized by leveraging NASDAQ
OMX's infrastructure and scale to market participants when those orders
are routed to BX Options and is providing those savings to all market
participants. Members and member organizations may choose to mark the
order as ineligible for routing to avoid incurring these fees.\14\
Today, other options exchanges also assess fixed routing fees to recoup
costs incurred by the Exchange to route orders to away markets.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 9.
    \15\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule and ISE's Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market, comprised of
eleven exchanges, in which market participants can easily and readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. Accordingly, the fees that are
assessed by the Exchange must remain competitive with fees charged by
other venues and therefore must continue to be reasonable and equitably
allocated to those members organizations that opt to direct orders to
the Exchange rather than competing venues.

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.\16\ 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 should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2013-030 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-BX-2013-030. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2013-030, and should be
submitted on or before May 16, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09711 Filed 4-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 9, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13247-13248]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04968]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 383

[Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0292]
RIN 2126-AC14

Third Party Commercial Driver's License Testers; Withdrawal

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to
allow States to permit a third party skills test examiner to administer
the Commercial Driver's License (CDL) skills test to applicants to whom
the examiner has also provided skills training, a practice now
prohibited under FMCSA regulations. FMCSA takes this action after
considering the comments received following publication of the NPRM, as
explained further below.

DATES: The proposed rule published July 9, 2019, at 84 FR 32689, is
withdrawn as of March 9, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nikki McDavid, Chief, Commercial
Driver's License Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In October 2017, as part of the Department's review of existing
regulations to evaluate their continued necessity and effectiveness,
DOT published a ``Notification of Regulatory Review'' seeking public
input on existing rules and other agency actions (82 FR 45750 (Oct. 2,
2017)). In response to that notification, SAGE Truck Driving Schools
(SAGE) recommended that FMCSA eliminate the prohibition, set forth in
Sec.  383.75(a)(7), that prevents

States from permitting a third party skills examiner from administering
a CDL skills test to an applicant who received skills training from
that examiner. In support of its recommendation, SAGE asserted that the
prohibition is unnecessary because: (1) State-based CDL testing
compliance agencies have many other effective tools to detect and
prevent fraud in CDL skills testing; (2) the rule causes significant
inconvenience and cost for third party testers, CDL applicants, the
transportation industry, and the public; (3) it needlessly makes CDL
training and testing operation more difficult and costly, thereby
exacerbating the CMV driver shortage; and (4) it contributes to CDL
testing delays in some States.
    On July 9, 2019, FMCSA published an NPRM \1\ to amend 49 CFR
383.75(a)(7) to allow States to permit a third party skills test
examiner to administer the CDL skills test to applicants to whom the
examiner has also provided skills training. This practice is currently
prohibited under 49 CFR 383.75(a)(7). When issuing the proposal, the
Agency noted that lifting the restriction could potentially alleviate
skills testing delays and reduce cost and inconvenience for third party
testers and CDL applicants, without negatively impacting safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the NPRM and comments, go to https://www.regulations.gov/document/FMCSA-2018-0292-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency received 95 comments on the NPRM before the deadline of
September 9, 2019. Most comments were submitted by individuals, many of
whom identified themselves as trainers, testers, or drivers. Several
organizations commented on the proposal, including the American Bus
Association, Commercial Vehicle Training Association (CVTA), Truckload
Carriers Association, National Limousine Association, American Trucking
Associations, the Minnesota Trucking Association, and the Minnesota
School Bus Operators Association. The following State driver licensing
agencies also commented on the NPRM: Virginia Department of Motor
Vehicles; Missouri Department of Revenue; Oregon Department of
Transportation, Driver and Motor Vehicle Services; Washington State
Department of Licensing; and Minnesota Department of Public Safety,
Driver and Vehicle Services Division.
    Most commenters opposed the NPRM, citing concerns about fraud,
conflict of interest, or examiner bias. These commenters argued that
allowing the same individual to train and test the applicant could
undermine the integrity of the skills testing process, thereby
negatively impacting safety. As one individual noted, ``The proposed
rule removes the necessary impartiality of the CDL examiner, allowing
the instructor to fail or pass student drivers with whom they have
developed a relationship. This is not a fair assessment of the
candidates' abilities.'' A commenter identifying as a trainer with 22
years of experience expressed a similar concern, explaining that ``the
reason another trainer has to test my student is to prevent bias or
just passing them along.'' Another commenter said that, while some
companies ``will do due diligence to make sure drivers are trained
properly,'' lifting the restriction would remove necessary checks and
balances from the skills testing process. The Minnesota Trucking
Association stated that lifting the restriction ``would cause an
increased risk of intentional and unintentional bias in testing
results.'' One individual observed that current alternative approaches
to detecting fraud in CDL testing, identified in the NPRM, ``rely on
the principle of deterrence rather than prevention . . . which allows
unqualified drivers to obtain their CDLs and legally operate
[commercial] motor vehicles on public roadways without proper
training--at least until the fraud is discovered.''
    All of the States that commented on the NPRM (Virginia, Oregon,
Washington, Minnesota, and Missouri) also raised concern that lifting
the prohibition could negatively impact safety by undermining the
integrity of skills testing. As Washington stated, the NPRM ``adds
substantial risk'' to third party testing ``by introducing an apparent
conflict of interest.''
    Additionally, three States voiced concerns about accepting skills
testing results for applicants tested in States that had lifted the
restriction. Oregon stated that, while the proposed change is
``permissive in nature, given the requirement to accept out-of-State
CDL skills test results, adoption by other jurisdictions will pose a
risk that we have deemed unacceptable.'' Similarly, Virginia noted it
would be ``unable to guard against fraud in these situations and that
unsafe drivers will be licensed to drive interstate impacting safety in
Virginia and elsewhere.'' Washington expressed ``strong concerns with
accepting skills test results from other jurisdictions allowing [third
party skills test examiners] to test the individuals they train.''
    Most of the organizations that commented in support of the proposal
believed that lifting the restriction would not compromise safety, due
to the extensive fraud detection measures already in place. As CVTA
noted, ``[t]hird party testing occurs within a powerful network of
state and federal regulation . . . [which] upholds the integrity of the
examination process because it monitors examiner activity to prevent
fraud.'' Some individual commenters argued that permitting the same
individual to train and test the applicant would not result in a
conflict of interest. One instructor stated he finds the current
restriction offensive because it presumes that ``all teachers are
frauds and not trustworthy to test their own students.'' Several
commenters asserted that lifting the restriction could enhance safety
by expanding the opportunity for students to benefit from the expertise
of different instructors.
    Some commenters supporting the proposal said that it would increase
flexibility and efficiencies for both applicants and third party
testers and would alleviate skills testing delays. For example,
Greyhound Lines, Inc. stated that ``[a]llowing Greyhound trainers to
administer the CDL test to the drivers they train enables the drivers
who pass the test to start their work assignments earlier than if they
have to wait for a State-administered test.''
    The Agency carefully considered all comments. FMCSA acknowledges
the NPRM's potential for increasing the efficiency and flexibility of
the skills testing process and reducing skills test delays.\2\ The
Agency is persuaded, however, by numerous comments citing the NPRM's
potential for undermining the integrity of the CDL skills testing
process and negatively impacting highway safety. FMCSA has therefore
decided to retain the current regulation (49 CFR 383.75(a)(7))
prohibiting States from permitting a third party skills test examiner
to administer the CDL skills test to applicants to whom the examiner
has also provided skills training. The Agency hereby withdraws the July
9, 2019, NPRM referenced above, based on the same legal authorities on
which it issued the NPRM, set forth at 84 FR 32689, 32691.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the NPRM, FMCSA requested quantitative data addressing
the impact of the current prohibition on skills testing delays, but
did not receive data addressing this issue.

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
Robin Hutcheson,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-04968 Filed 3-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P