[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66720-66722]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23363]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0028]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 37 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted July 18, 2016. The exemptions expire
on July 19, 2018.

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 W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    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

    On June 16, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (81 FR 39320). That notice listed 37 applicants' case histories.
The 37 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-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 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 37 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle 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 (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 37
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, cataract, central serous
chorioretinopathy, complete loss of vision, corneal scar, dense corneal
scar, macular scar, macular telangiectasia, optic nerve damage, optic
nerve hypoplasia, phthisis bulbi, prosthetic eye, ptosis, refractive
amblyopia, retinal detachment, strabismic amblyopia, and vision loss.
In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed.

Twenty-nine of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The 8 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had them for a range of 3 to 25 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 37 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 3 to 39
years. In the past three years, no drivers were involved in crashes and
4 drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the June 16, 2016,
notice (81 FR 39320).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    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 3
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 demonstrate 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 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 37 applicants, no drivers were involved in crashes, and 4 drivers
were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 37 applicants listed in the notice of June
16, 2016 (81 FR 39320).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 37 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.

    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following:
    (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the
certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received 3 comments in this proceeding. Patience Agbodzie, a
medical examiner from Pennsylvania, stated she finds the publication to
be very informative and is interested to learn who will or will not
receive an exemption. Blake Ishizu stated he believes that drivers who
meet the criteria for the exemption should be granted the exemption.
Deb Carlson stated that the state of Minnesota has no concerns with
granting exemptions to Joel Nundahl and Kenneth Erickson.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 37 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Dennis J. Ameling (IA)
Daniel A. Bahm (FL)
John P. Brooks (IL)
Joshua L. Cecotti (WA)
Derrick L. Cowan (NC)
Ryan E. Cox (WI)
Ronald A. Donsbach (MT)
Kenneth W. Erickson (MN)
Anthony A. Gusa (MI)
Pedro Guzman (TX)
Bradley C. Helsel (OR)
Titus E. Hostetler (MS)
Darrell E. Hunter (NC)
Charles R. Johnson (MN)
Kenneth B. Julian (OK)
Walter J. Jurczak (NJ)
Keith Kebschull (IL)
Jeffrey N. Lake (IL)
Jayme M. Leonard (VT)
Christopher E. Madsen (IA)
James K. Matthey (PA)
Brian D. McClanahan (IL)
Mark Mitchell (MI)
Joel E. Nundahl (MN)
Kent A. Perry (WY)
Richard C. Powers (TX)
Mario A. Quezada (TX)
Guadalupe Reyes (FL)
J.B. Rodriguez Mata (TX)
Joseph Sais (NM)
John M. Sexton (CA)
Blaine R. Sherfinski (WA)
Chad M. Smith (IA)
Corey L. Spring (AR)
Leslie D. Wallace (MO)
James C. Wechsler (OR)
Danny A. Wright (IN)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked 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 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: September 19, 2016.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-23363 Filed 9-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68231-68235]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26851]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87692; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2019-064]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 21.23 (Complex
Solicitation Auction Mechanism)

December 9, 2019.

I. Introduction

    On October 23, 2019, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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 adopt Rule 21.23, the Complex Solicitation
Auction Mechanism (``C-SAM''), a solicited order mechanism for larger-
sized complex orders. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on November 6, 2019.\3\ The Commission
has received no comments regarding 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. 87435 (October 31,
2019), 84 FR 59866 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    As described more fully in the Notice,\4\ the Exchange proposes to
adopt Rule 21.23 \5\ allowing complex orders to be submitted to and
processed in its solicited order mechanism. The proposal permits an
Options Member

(the ``Initiating Member'') to execute electronically a larger-sized
complex order it represents as agent (``Agency Order'') against a
solicited complex order(s) (``Solicited Order''), provided that it
submits both the Agency Order and Solicited Order into the C-SAM.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See id.
    \5\ For purposes of proposed Rule 21.23, the term ``SBBO'' means
the synthetic best bid or offer calculated using the best displayed
price for each component of a complex strategy from the simple book
at the particular point in time applicable to the reference. The
Exchange notes that there is no national best bid or offer for
complex orders, as complex orders may be executed without
consideration of any prices for the complex strategy that might be
available on other exchanges trading the same complex strategy. See
Rule 21.20(c)(2)(E).
    \6\ The Solicited Order cannot have a capacity of F for the same
EFID as the Agency Order. The Agency Order and Solicited Order
cannot both be for the accounts of a customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Eligibility and C-SAM Auction Process

    The Initiating Member may initiate a C-SAM in any class traded on
the Exchange.\7\ The smallest leg of an Agency Order marked for C-SAM
processing must be at least the minimum size designated by the
Exchange, which may not be less than 500 standard option contracts or
5,000 mini-option contracts.\8\ The size of the Solicited Order(s) must
be for/total the same size as the Agency Order.\9\ The system will
automatically handle each of the Agency Order and Solicited Order as an
all-or-none (``AON'') order,\10\ and the price of the Agency Order and
Solicited Order must be in an increment of $0.01.\11\ Also, an
Initiating Member may not designate an Agency Order or Solicited Order
as Post Only \12\ and may only submit an Agency Order after the complex
order book (``COB'') opens.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed Rule 21.23(a)(1).
    \8\ See proposed Rule 21.23(a)(3).
    \9\ See id.
    \10\ See id. The Exchange notes that it intends to separately
amend Rule 21.21, which currently states that an Initiating Member
must designate the Agency Order and Solicited Order as AON, to
conform to proposed Rule 21.23(a)(3). See Notice, supra note 3, at
59867 n.12.
    \11\ See proposed Rule 21.23(a)(4).
    \12\ See proposed Rule 21.23(a)(5).
    \13\ See proposed Rule 21.23(a)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Solicited Order must stop the entire buy (sell) Agency Order at
a price that is at or better than the then-current SBO (SBB) or the
price of the best-priced sell (buy) complex order on the COB.\14\
Regarding resting simple orders that are on the same side as the Agency
Order, the proposal provides that if the Agency Order is to buy (sell),
the stop price must be at or better than the SBB (SBO), unless the
applicable side of the BBO on any component of the complex strategy
represents a Priority Customer order on the simple book, in which case
the stop price must be at least $0.01 better than the SBB (SBO).\15\
Regarding resting complex orders that are on the same side as the
Agency Order, the proposal provides that if the Agency Order is to buy
(sell), the stop price must be at least $0.01 better than the bid
(offer) of the resting complex order, unless the Agency Order is a
Priority Customer order and the resting order on the COB is not a
Priority Customer, in which case the stop price must be at or better
than the bid (offer) of the resting complex order.\16\ Regarding
resting simple orders that are on the opposite side as the Agency
Order, the proposal provides that if the Agency Order is to buy (sell),
the stop price must be at or better than the SBO (SBB), unless the BBO
of any component of the complex strategy represents a Priority Customer
order on the simple book, in which case the stop price must be at least
$0.01 better than the SBO (SBB).\17\ Regarding resting complex orders
that are on the opposite side as the Agency Order, the proposal
provides that if the Agency Order is to buy (sell) and the best-priced
sell (buy) complex order on the COB represents (i) a complex order that
is not a Priority Customer, the stop price must be at or better than
the price of the resting complex order; or (ii) a Priority Customer
complex order, the stop price must be at least $0.01 better than the
SBO (SBB).\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See proposed Rule 21.23(b).
    \15\ See proposed Rule 21.23(b)(1).
    \16\ See proposed Rule 21.23(b)(2).
    \17\ See proposed Rule 21.23(b)(3).
    \18\ See proposed Rule 21.23(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange system will initiate the C-SAM process by sending a C-
SAM auction notification message detailing the side, size, price,
capacity, auction ID, and complex strategy of the Agency Order to all
Options Members that elect to receive C-SAM auction notification
messages.\19\ C-SAM auction notification messages will not be
disseminated to the Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'').\20\
The C-SAM auction will last for a period of time determined by the
Exchange (the ``C-SAM auction period''), which may be no less than 100
milliseconds and no more than one second.\21\ An Initiating Member may
not modify or cancel an Agency Order or Solicited Order after
submission to a C-SAM auction.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(2).
    \20\ See id.
    \21\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(3). The Exchange will announce
the length of the C-SAM auction period to Options Members pursuant
to Rule 16.3.
    \22\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any user other than the Initiating Member (determined by EFID) may
submit responses to a C-SAM auction that are properly marked specifying
size, side of the market, and the auction ID for the C-SAM auction to
which the user is submitting the response.\23\ C-SAM responses must be
on the opposite side of the market as the Agency Order,\24\ and the
minimum price increment for C-SAM responses is $0.01.\25\ C-SAM buy
(sell) responses are capped at the better of the SBO (SBB) or the offer
(bid) of a resting complex order at the top of the COB, or $0.01 better
than the better of the SBO (SBB) or the offer (bid) of a resting
complex order at the top of the COB if the BBO of any component of the
complex strategy or the resting complex order, respectively, is a
Priority Customer order.\26\ For purposes of the C-SAM auction, the
system will aggregate all of a user's complex orders on the COB and C-
SAM responses for the same EFID at the same price.\27\ The system will
cap the size of a C-SAM response, or the aggregate size of a user's
complex orders on the COB and C-SAM responses for the same EFID at the
same price, at the size of the Agency Order (i.e., the system will
ignore size in excess of the size of the Agency Order when processing a
C-SAM auction).\28\ C-SAM responses will not be visible to C-SAM
auction participants or disseminated to OPRA.\29\ A user may modify or
cancel its C-SAM responses during the C-SAM auction.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(5).
    \24\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(5)(E).
    \25\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(5)(A).
    \26\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(5)(B).
    \27\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(5)(C). The Exchange notes that
this is similar to the corresponding provision for the Exchange's
simple SAM auction. See Rule 21.22(c)(5)(C). The Exchange also notes
that this (combined with the proposed size cap) is intended to
prevent an Options Member from submitting multiple orders or
responses at the same price to obtain a larger pro-rata share of the
Agency Order. See Notice, supra note 3, at 59870.
    \28\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(5)(D). The Exchange notes that
this is similar to the corresponding provision for the Exchange's
simple SAM auction. See Rule 21.22(c)(5)(D). The Exchange notes that
this is intended to prevent an Options Member from submitting an
order or response with an extremely large size in order to obtain a
larger pro-rata share of the Agency Order. See Notice, supra note 3,
at 59870.
    \29\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(5)(F).
    \30\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(5)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One or more C-SAM auctions in the same complex strategy may occur
at the same time, C-SAM auctions in different complex strategies may be
ongoing at any given time (even if the complex strategies have
overlapping components), and a C-SAM auction may be ongoing at the same
time as a SAM auction in any component of the complex strategy.\31\ To
the extent there is more than one C-SAM auction in a complex strategy
underway at a time, the C-SAM auctions will conclude sequentially based
on the exact time each C-SAM commenced, unless terminated early
pursuant to proposed Rule 21.23(d).\32\ In the event there are multiple
C-SAM auctions underway that are each terminated early pursuant

to proposed Rule 21.23(d), the system will process the C-SAM auctions
sequentially based on the exact time each C-SAM auction commenced.\33\
If the system receives a simple order that causes a SAM auction and C-
SAM auction (or multiple SAM and/or C-SAM auctions) to conclude
pursuant to Rule 21.23(d) and Rule 21.21(d), the system will first
process SAM auctions (in price-time priority) and then process C-SAM
auctions (in price-time priority).\34\ At the time each C-SAM auction
concludes, the system will allocate the Agency Order pursuant to
proposed Rule 21.23(e) and will take into account all C-SAM responses
and unrelated orders and quotes in place at the exact time of
conclusion.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(1)(A).
    \32\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(1)(B).
    \33\ See id. See also Notice, supra note 3, at 59868-69.
    \34\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(1)(B).
    \35\ See proposed Rule 21.23(c)(1)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Conclusion of the C-SAM Auction

    The C-SAM will conclude at the sooner of the following: (i) The end
of the C-SAM auction period; (ii) upon receipt by the system of an
unrelated non-Priority Customer complex order on the same side of
market as the Agency Order that would post to the COB at a price better
than the stop price; (iii) upon receipt by the system of an unrelated
Priority Customer complex order on the same side of the market as the
Agency Order that would post to the COB at a price equal to or better
than the stop price; (iv) upon receipt by the system of an unrelated
non-Priority Customer order or quote that would post to the simple book
and cause the SBBO on the same side of the market as the Agency Order
to be better than the stop price; (v) upon receipt by the system of a
Priority Customer order in any component of the complex strategy that
would post to the simple book and cause the SBBO on the same side of
the market as the Agency Order to be equal to or better than the stop
price; (vi) upon receipt by the system of a simple non-Priority
Customer order that would cause the SBBO on the opposite side of market
as the Agency Order to be better than the stop price, or a Priority
Customer order that would cause the SBBO on the opposite side of market
as the Agency Order to be equal to or better than the stop price; (vii)
upon receipt by the system of an order that would cause the SBBO to be
a price not permissible under the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan or
Regulation SHO, provided, however, that in such instance, the C-SAM
auction would conclude without execution; (viii) the market close; and
(ix) any time the Exchange halts trading in the complex strategy,
provided, however, that in such instance the C-SAM auction will
conclude without execution.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See proposed Rule 21.23(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An unrelated market or marketable limit complex order (against the
SBBO or the best price of a complex order resting in the COB),
including a Post Only complex order, on the opposite side of the Agency
Order received during the C-SAM will not cause the C-SAM auction to end
early and will execute against interest outside of the C-SAM auction or
be posted to the COB.\37\ If contracts remain from such unrelated
complex order at the time the C-SAM auction ends, they may be allocated
for execution against the Agency Order pursuant to proposed Rule
21.23(e).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See proposed Rule 21.23(d)(2).
    \38\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Priority and Allocation

    At the conclusion of the C-SAM auction, the system will execute the
Agency Order against the Solicited Order or contra-side complex
interest (which includes complex orders on the COB and C-SAM responses)
at the best price(s) as follows (provided that any execution price(s)
must be at or between the SBBO and the best prices of any complex
orders resting on each side of the COB at the conclusion of the C-SAM
auction): \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See proposed Rule 21.23(e). Additionally, if there is a
Priority Customer order representing any leg of the SBBO in the
simple book, the execution price must be better than the SBBO, in
accordance with complex order priority. See Rule 21.20(f)(2).
Additionally, any execution price must be better than the price of
any resting Priority Order complex order on the COB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The system will execute the Agency Order against the
Solicited Order at the stop price if there are no Priority Customer
complex orders resting on the COB on the opposite side of the Agency
Order at or better than the stop price and the aggregate size of
contra-side interest at an improved price(s) is insufficient to satisfy
the Agency Order.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See proposed Rule 21.23(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The system will execute the Agency Order against contra-
side interest (and cancel the Solicited Order) if (A) there is a
Priority Customer complex order resting on the COB on the opposite side
of the Agency Order at or better than the stop price and the aggregate
size of that order and other contra-side interest is sufficient to
satisfy the Agency Order; or (B) the aggregate size of contra-side
interest at an improved price(s) is sufficient to satisfy the Agency
Order.\41\ The Agency Order execution against such contra-side interest
will occur at each price level, to the price at which the balance of
the Agency Order can be fully executed, first against Priority Customer
complex orders on the COB (in time priority) and then against remaining
contra-side interest (including non-Priority Customer orders on the COB
and C-SAM responses) in a pro-rata manner.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See proposed Rule 21.23(e)(2).
    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The system will cancel the Agency Order and Solicited
Order with no execution if (i) execution of the Agency Order against
the Solicited Order at the stop price would not be at or between the
SBBO at the conclusion of the C-SAM auction, better than the SBBO if
there is a Priority Customer order in any leg component in the simple
book, at or better than the best-priced complex order resting on the
COB, or better than the best-priced complex order resting on the COB if
it is a Priority Customer complex order; (ii) there is a Priority
Customer complex order resting on the COB on the opposite side of the
Agency Order at or better than the stop price, and the aggregate size
of the Priority Customer complex order and any other contra-side
interest is insufficient to satisfy the Agency Order; or (iii) there is
a non-Priority Customer complex order resting on the COB on the
opposite side of the Agency Order at a price better than the stop
price, and the aggregate size of the resting complex order and any
other contra-side interest is insufficient to satisfy the Agency
Order.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See proposed Rule 21.23(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executions following a C-SAM Auction for a complex Agency Order are
subject to the complex order price restrictions and priority in Rule
21.20(f)(2).\44\ The system will cancel or reject any unexecuted C-SAM
responses (or unexecuted portions) at the conclusion of the C-SAM
auction.\45\ The Agency Order will only execute against the Solicited
Order or C-SAM responses and complex orders resting in the COB, and
will not leg into the simple book, at the conclusion of a C-SAM
auction.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See proposed Rule 21.23(e)(4).
    \45\ See proposed Rule 21.23(e)(5).
    \46\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 59871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Notification Requirement and Order Exposure Rule

    Proposed Rule 21.23, Interpretation and Policy .01 provides that
prior to entering Agency Orders into a C-SAM auction on behalf of
customers, Initiating Members must deliver to the customer a written
notification informing the customer that his order may be executed
using the C-SAM

auction. The written notification must disclose the terms and
conditions contained in proposed Rule 21.23 and be in a form approved
by the Exchange.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See proposed Rule 21.23, Interpretation and Policy .01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under Rule 21.23, Initiating Members may enter contra-side orders
that are solicited. C-SAM provides a facility for Options Members that
locate liquidity for their customer orders. Proposed Rule 21.23,
Interpretation and Policy .02 provides that Options Members may not use
the C-SAM auction to circumvent Rule 21.19 or 21.22 limiting principal
transactions. This may include, but is not limited to, Options Members
entering contra-side orders that are solicited from (a) affiliated
broker-dealers or (b) broker-dealers with which the Options Member has
an arrangement that allows the Options Member to realize similar
economic benefits from the solicited transaction as it would achieve by
executing the customer order in whole or in part as principal.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See proposed Rule 21.23, Interpretation and Policy .02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission 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
and, in particular, with Section 6(b) of the Act.\49\ In particular,
the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\50\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b). In approving this proposed rule change,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that allowing Options Members to enter
complex orders into the C-SAM could provide additional opportunities
for such large-sized complex orders to receive price improvement. The
Commission further believes that the proposal to establish the C-SAM
may allow for greater flexibility in executing large-sized complex
orders, is not novel, and does not otherwise raise any issues of first
impression.\51\ The Commission believes that the proposal includes
appropriate terms and conditions to assure that the Agency Order is
exposed to Options Members for the possibility of price improvement and
that Priority Customer orders on the Exchange are protected. At the
conclusion of a C-SAM, the Agency Order would either be executed in
full (at a price at or between the SBBO and at or better than the best-
priced complex order resting on the COB at the conclusion of the C-SAM
auction) or cancelled. The Agency Order will be executed against the
Solicited Order at the proposed stop price if (i) there is insufficient
size among contra-side trading interest at a price better than the stop
price to execute the Agency Order; and (ii) there are no Priority
Customer complex orders resting in the COB on the opposite side of the
Agency Order at or better than the stop price.\52\ If there are
Priority Customer complex orders and there is sufficient size to
execute the Agency Order (considering all eligible interest), then the
Agency Order will be executed against these interests and the Solicited
Order will be cancelled.\53\ If, however, there are resting Priority
Customer complex orders at the stop price, but there is not sufficient
size to execute the Agency Order in full, then both the Agency Order
and the Solicited Order will be cancelled.\54\ Finally, if there is
sufficient size to execute the Agency Order in full at an improved
price equal to or better than the SBBO and the best-priced complex
order resting on the COB at the conclusion of the C-SAM auction, the
Agency Order will execute at the improved price and the Solicited Order
will be cancelled. The Commission believes that the priority and
allocation rules for the C-SAM, which are consistent with similar
mechanisms on other exchanges,\55\ are reasonable and consistent with
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ The Commission also notes that the proposal is nearly
identical to the requirements set forth for the complex order
solicitation mechanism on another options exchange. See Cboe Options
Rule 5.40. See also Nasdaq ISE, LLC Options 3, Section 11(e).
    \52\ See proposed Rule 21.23(e)(1).
    \53\ See proposed Rule 21.23(e)(2).
    \54\ See proposed Rule 21.23(e)(3).
    \55\ See, e.g., Cboe Options Rule 5.40 (Complex Solicitation
Auction Mechanism).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Section 11(a) of the Act

    Section 11(a)(1) of the Act \56\ prohibits a member of a national
securities exchange from effecting transactions on that exchange for
its own account, the account of an associated person, or an account
over which it or its associated person exercises investment discretion
(collectively, ``covered accounts'') unless an exception applies. Rule
11a2-2(T) under the Act,\57\ known as the ``effect versus execute''
rule, provides exchange members with an exemption from the Section
11(a)(1) prohibition. Rule 11a2-2(T) permits an exchange member,
subject to certain conditions, to effect transactions for covered
accounts by arranging for an unaffiliated member to execute
transactions on the exchange. To comply with Rule 11a2-2(T)'s
conditions, a member: (i) Must transmit the order from off the exchange
floor; (ii) may not participate in the execution of the transaction
once it has been transmitted to the member performing the execution;
\58\ (iii) may not be affiliated with the executing member; and (iv)
with respect to an account over which the member or an associated
person has investment discretion, neither the member nor its associated
person may retain any compensation in connection with effecting the
transaction except as provided in the Rule. For the reasons set forth
below, the Commission believes that Exchange Options Members entering
orders into the C-SAM would satisfy the requirements of Rule 11a2-2(T).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ 15 U.S.C. 78k(a)(1).
    \57\ 17 CFR 240.11a2-2(T).
    \58\ This prohibition also applies to associated persons. The
member may, however, participate in clearing and settling the
transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rule's first condition is that orders for covered accounts be
transmitted from off the exchange floor. In the context of automated
trading systems, the Commission has found that the off-floor
transmission requirement is met if a covered account order is
transmitted from a remote location directly to an exchange's floor by
electronic means.\59\ The Exchange represents that its trading system
and the proposed C-SAM receive all orders electronically through remote
terminals

or computer-to-computer interfaces.\60\ The Exchange also represents
that orders for covered accounts from Options Members will be
transmitted from a remote location directly to the proposed C-SAM by
electronic means. Because no Exchange Options Member may submit orders
into the C-SAM from on the floor of the Exchange, the Commission
believes that the C-SAM satisfies the off-floor transmission
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 61419
(January 26, 2010), 75 FR 5157 (February 1, 2010) (SR-BATS-2009-031)
(approving BATS options trading); 59154 (December 23, 2008), 73 FR
80468 (December 31, 2008) (SR-BSE-2008-48) (approving equity
securities listing and trading on BSE); 57478 (March 12, 2008), 73
FR 14521 (March 18, 2008) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-004 and SR-NASDAQ-2007-
080) (approving NOM options trading); 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71
FR 3550 (January 23, 2006) (File No. 10-131) (approving The Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC); 44983 (October 25, 2001), 66 FR 55225 (November
1, 2001) (SR-PCX-00-25) (approving Archipelago Exchange); 29237 (May
24, 1991), 56 FR 24853 (May 31, 1991) (SR-NYSE-90-52 and SR-NYSE-90-
53) (approving NYSE's Off-Hours Trading Facility); and 15533
(January 29, 1979), 44 FR 6084 (January 31, 1979) (``1979
Release'').
    \60\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 59876.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Rule requires that the member and any associated person
not participate in the execution of its order after the order has been
transmitted. The Exchange represents that at no time following the
submission to the C-SAM of an order or C-SAM response is an Options
Member able to acquire control or influence over the result or timing
of the order's or response's execution.\61\ According to the Exchange,
the execution of an order (including the Agency and the Solicited
Order) or a C-SAM response sent to the C-SAM is determined by what
other orders and responses are present and the priority of those orders
and responses.\62\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that an Options
Member does not participate in the execution of an order or response
submitted to the C-SAM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See id. (also representing, among other things, that no
Options Member, including the Initiating Member, will see a C-SAM
response submitted into C-SAM and therefore will not be able to
influence or guide the execution of their Agency Orders, Solicited
Orders, or C-SAM responses, as applicable).
    \62\ See id. The Exchange notes that an Initiating Member may
not cancel or modify an Agency Order or Solicited Order after it has
been submitted into C-SAM, but that Options Members may modify or
cancel their responses after being submitted to a C-SAM. See id. at
59876 n.77. As the Exchange notes, the Commission has stated that
the non-participation requirement does not preclude members from
cancelling or modifying orders, or from modifying instructions for
executing orders, after they have been transmitted so long as such
modifications or cancellations are also transmitted from off the
floor. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 14563 (March 14,
1978), 43 FR 11542, 11547 (the ``1978 Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, Rule 11a2-2(T) requires that the order be executed by an
exchange member who is unaffiliated with the member initiating the
order. The Commission has stated that this requirement is satisfied
when automated exchange facilities, such as the C-SAM, are used, as
long as the design of these systems ensures that members do not possess
any special or unique trading advantages in handling their orders after
transmitting them to the exchange.\63\ The Exchange represents that the
C-SAM is designed so that no Options Member has any special or unique
trading advantage in the handling of its orders or responses after
transmitting its orders to the mechanism.\64\ Based on the Exchange's
representation, the Commission believes that the C-SAM satisfies this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ In considering the operation of automated execution systems
operated by an exchange, the Commission noted that, while there is
not an independent executing exchange member, the execution of an
order is automatic once it has been transmitted into the system.
Because the design of these systems ensures that members do not
possess any special or unique trading advantages in handling their
orders after transmitting them to the exchange, the Commission has
stated that executions obtained through these systems satisfy the
independent execution requirement of Rule 11a2-2(T). See 1979
Release, supra note 48.
    \64\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 59876.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fourth, in the case of a transaction effected for an account with
respect to which the initiating member or an associated person thereof
exercises investment discretion, neither the initiating member nor any
associated person thereof may retain any compensation in connection
with effecting the transaction, unless the person authorized to
transact business for the account has expressly provided otherwise by
written contract referring to Section 11(a) of the Act and Rule 11a2-
2(T) thereunder.\65\ The Exchange represents that Options Members
relying on Rule 11a2-2(T) for transactions effected through the C-SAM
must comply with this condition of the Rule and that the Exchange will
enforce this requirement pursuant to its obligations under Section
6(b)(1) of the Act to enforce compliance with federal securities
laws.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ In addition, Rule 11a2-2(T)(d) requires a member or
associated person authorized by written contract to retain
compensation, in connection with effecting transactions for covered
accounts over which such member or associated persons thereof
exercises investment discretion, to furnish at least annually to the
person authorized to transact business for the account a statement
setting forth the total amount of compensation retained by the
member or any associated person thereof in connection with effecting
transactions for the account during the period covered by the
statement. See 17 CFR 240.11a2-2(T)(d). See also 1978 Release, supra
note 51, at 11548 (stating ``[t]he contractual and disclosure
requirements are designed to assure that accounts electing to permit
transaction-related compensation do so only after deciding that such
arrangements are suitable to their interests'').
    \66\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 59876-77.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\67\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CboeEDGX-2019-064) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26851 Filed 12-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


July 17, 2002 MEMORANDUM:

SUBJECT: Lindane (009001): Reregistration Case 0315. Addendum to the Revised Chemistry and HED Chapters (DP Barcode: D279259 & D283643) for the Lindane Reregistration Eligibility Document (RED). DP Barcode: D284183.

FROM: Thurston G. Morton, Chemist Reregistration Branch 4 Health Effects Division (7509C)

THROUGH: Susan V. Hummel, Branch Senior Scientist Reregistration Branch 4 Health Effects Division (7509C)

TO: Rebecca Daiss, Risk Assessor Reregistration Branch 4 Health Effects Division (7509C)

And Mark Howard/ Betty Shackleford Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review & Reregistration Division (7508C)

This memorandum serves to update the Tolerance Tables contained in the Product and Residue Chemistry Chapter (T. Morton, 12/ 11/ 01, D279259) and the HED Risk Assessment (B. Daiss, 6/ 13/ 02, D283643) by amending the tolerances which were listed as TBD (to be determined). Recommended tolerance levels for lindane, per se, in cereal grains are derived from the wheat magnitude of the residue study (T. Morton, 8/ 30/ 00, D259318). Tolerances will be re evaluated when the required nature of the residue study is submitted. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Residue Chemistry C A new nature of the residue study is required for application of lindane as a seed treatment to a cereal grain.

C If the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee determines the residues of concern to include metabolites in addition to lindane, then additional crop field trial data, magnitude of the residue in poultry and cattle, and processing studies are required. In addition, an adequate residue analytical method and storage stability data will be required.

cc : Chem F, Chron F. Morton RDI: SVH: 7/ 17/ 02 TM, Thurston Morton, Rm. 816D CM2, 305 6691, mail code 7509C 3 TOLERANCE REASSESSMENT SUMMARY Tolerances for residues of lindane in/ on raw agricultural and animal commodities are established under 40 CFR §180.133 and expressed in terms of residues of lindane per se [gamma isomer of benzene hexachloride]. The residue definition for lindane is misleading and should be amended as follows to harmonize with IUPAC nomenclature: gamma isomer of 1,2,3,4,5,6 hexachlorocyclohexane. Plant commodity tolerances for lindane were originally established based on registered uses which included preplant soil application, foliar applications, and seed treatments. Animal commodity tolerances were established based on uses which included direct livestock animal treatment as well as animal premise treatment. Refer to Table B for a list of established and proposed lindane tolerances.

The only food/ feed use of lindane which is being supported for reregistration is seed treatment on cereal grains (excluding rice and wild rice).

At this time, lindane tolerances are being reassessed in terms of lindane, per se. The nature of the residue in plants and animals must be adequately elucidated, and HED's MARC must determine the terminal residues of concern. The tolerances will be reevaluated once an adequate nature of the residue study in plants is submitted.

The listing of lindane tolerances under 40 CFR §180.133 should be subdivided into parts (a), (b), (c), and (d). Part (a) should be reserved for commodities with permanent tolerances, part (b) for Section 18 emergency exemptions, part (c) for tolerances with regional registrations, and part (d) for indirect or inadvertent residues.

Tolerances Listed Under 40 CFR §180.133:

Following resolutions of residue chemistry data deficiencies specified in this Residue Chemistry Science Chapter, a statement in 40 CFR §180.133 should be added to specify that the established tolerances result from seed treatment only.

The established tolerances for the following commodities should be revoked because no registrants have committed to support their uses: apples, apricots, asparagus, avocados, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower, celery, cherry, collards, cucumbers, eggplants, grapes, guavas, kale, kohlrabi, lettuce, mangoes, melons, mushrooms, mustard greens, nectarines, okra, onions (dry bulb only), peaches, pears, pecans, peppers, pineapple, plums (fresh prunes), pumpkins, quinces, radish, spinach, squash, strawberries, summer squash, swiss chard, and tomatoes.

Tolerances To Be Proposed Under 40 CFR §180.133:

Tolerances for lindane, per se, need to be established for: barley, grain; barley, hay; barley, straw; corn, grain; corn, forage; corn, stover; oat, grain; oat, forage; oat, hay; oat, straw; rye, grain; rye, forage; rye, straw; sorghum, grain; sorghum, forage; 4 sorghum, stover; wheat, grain; wheat, forage; wheat, hay; and wheat, straw. In addition, tolerances for lindane, per se, need to be established for meat byproducts of cattle, goat, horse, and sheep; fat of cattle, goat, hog, horse, and sheep; milk; and fat of poultry. The remaining livestock tissues (meat and meat byproducts of hog and poultry; and eggs are 40 CFR 180.6( a)( 3) [no reasonable expectation of finding finite lindane residues] provided the HED MARC determines lindane, per se, is the only residue of concern. The tolerances for lindane, per se, will be re evaluated once adequate nature of the residue data in plants are submitted.

Pending Tolerance Petitions:

In 1993, CIEL proposed to delete all food/ feed uses except seed treatment. Concomitantly, CIEL proposed to establish tolerances of 0.1 ppm for residues of lindane per se in/ on several RACs as a result of seed treatment. In an initial Agency review (DP Barcode D213401, 10/ 31/ 95, S. Funk) of available residue data reflecting seed treatment, the Agency concluded that the proposed tolerances were adequate in some instances and inadequate or non acceptable in others. In those instances where the proposed tolerances were deemed inadequate, the reviewer proposed values that HED would consider as appropriate.

In 1998, CIEL submitted a petition, PP# 9F05057, for the establishment of time limited tolerances for residues of lindane per se in/ on several commodities resulting from seed treatment. The Agency review (DP Barcodes D254236, 8/ 30/ 00, T. Morton) of these tolerance proposals concluded that tolerances could not be established until an acceptable nature of the residue study in plants was submitted. At this time, tolerance levels for lindane, per se, are being recommended for cereal grains. These tolerances will be re evaluated once adequate nature of the residue data are submitted.

The registrants have also submitted PP# 9F6022, (D269388, T. Morton, 5/ 10/ 01) for the establishment of tolerances on lindane per se in/ on canola for which seed treatment is being proposed. Tolerances cannot be established until adequate nature of the residue data in plants are submitted. 5 Table B. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Lindane.

Commodity Tolerance Listed Under 40 CFR (ppm) Reassessed Tolerance (ppm) Comment [Correct Commodity Definition]

Tolerance Listed Under 40 CFR §180.133 Apples 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Apricots 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Asparagus 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Avocados 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Broccoli 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Brussels sprouts 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Cabbage 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Cauliflower 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Lettuce 3 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Spinach 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Celery 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Collards 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Kale 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Kohlrabi 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Mustard greens 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Swiss chard 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Cherry 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Cucumbers 3 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Eggplants 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Fat of meat from cattle, goats, horses, and sheep 7 0. 05 The Agency will re calculate the maximum theoretical dietary burden for livestock animals and re evaluate the adequacy of the available animal feeding studies when the required nature of the residue data in plants have been received and evaluated. / Cattle, fat; goat, fat; horse, fat; sheep, fat Hog, fat Fat of meat from hogs 4 0. 01 Grapes 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Guavas 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Mangoes 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Melons 3 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Mushrooms 3 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Nectarines 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Okra 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Onions (dry bulb only) 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Peaches 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Pears 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration. Commodity Tolerance Listed Under 40 CFR (ppm) Reassessed Tolerance (ppm) Comment [Correct Commodity Definition]

6 Pecans 0. 01 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Peppers 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Pineapple 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Plums (fresh prunes) 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Pumpkins 3 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Quinces 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Squash 3 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Strawberries 1 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Summer squash 3 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Tomatoes 3 Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Tolerance To Be Proposed Under 40 CFR §180.133 Barley, grain None established 0.005 A nature of the residue study for lindane residues resulting from seed treatment application to a cereal grain is required. The Agency will recalculate the maximum theoretical dietary burden for livestock animals and re evaluate the adequacy of the available animal feeding studies when the required nature of the residue data in plants have been received and evaluated. Barley, hay 0. 02 Barley, straw 0. 005 Corn, field, grain 0. 005 Corn, pop, grain 0. 005 Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed 0.005 Corn, , field, forage 0.05 Corn, sweet, forage 0.05 Corn, field, stover 0. 05 Corn, pop, stover 0. 05 Corn, sweet, stover 0. 05 Oat, grain 0. 005 Oat, forage 0.05 Oat, hay 0. 02 Oat, straw 0. 005 Rye, grain 0. 005 Rye, forage 0.05 Rye, straw 0. 005 Sorghum, grain, grain 0. 005 Sorghum, forage 0.05 Sorghum, grain, stover 0. 05 Wheat, grain 0. 005 Wheat, forage 0.05 Wheat, hay 0. 02 Wheat, straw 0. 005 Cattle, meat byproducts 0.01 Commodity Tolerance Listed Under 40 CFR (ppm) Reassessed Tolerance (ppm) Comment [Correct Commodity Definition]

7 Goat, meat byproducts 0.01 Horse, meat byproducts 0.01 Sheep, meat byproducts 0.01 Cattle, meat 0.01 Goat, meat 0.01 Horse, meat 0.01 Sheep, meat 0.01 Milk 0.01 Poultry, fat 0. 01 CODEX HARMONIZATION The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established several maximum residue limits (MRLs) for lindane in/ on various plant and animal commodities. The Codex MRLs are expressed in terms of gamma HCH (fat soluble). With respect to tolerance expression, the Codex MRL and U. S. tolerance for lindane are presently in harmony. However, the nature of the residue in plants remains inadequately understood, and the HED's MARC may determine that additional lindane metabolites should be included in the U. S. tolerance expression.

A numerical comparison of the Codex MRLs and the corresponding reassessed U. S. tolerances resulting from seed treatment is presented in Table C. The established Codex MRLs and the recommended U. S. tolerances for Brussels sprouts, cabbage (Savoy), cabbages (head), cereal grains, lettuce (head), and radish are not in harmony presumably because of differences in good agricultural practices. Attempts to harmonize residue limits in animal commodities cannot be made at this time because of several residue chemistry data gaps.

Table C. Codex MRLs and applicable U. S. tolerances for lindane. Recommendations are based on conclusions following reassessment of U. S. tolerances (see Table B). 8 Codex Reassessed U. S. Tolerance, ppm 1 Codex Comments Commodity, As Defined MRL in mg/ kg (Step)

Apple 0. 5 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Beans (dry) 1 (CXL) 2 None established Not being supported for reregistration.

Brussels sprouts 0. 5 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Cabbage, Savoy 0.5 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Cabbages, Head 0.5 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Cacao beans 1 (CXL) None established Not being supported for reregistration.

Carrot 0. 2 (CXL) None established Not being supported for reregistration.

Cauliflower 0. 5 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Cereal grains 0.5 (CXL) 2 0.005 ppm for the grains of barley, oats, rye, and wheat The Agency will re evaluate the cereal grain tolerances when the required nature of the residue data in plants have been received and evaluated.

Cherries 0.5 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Cocoa butter 1 (CXL) None established Not being supported for reregistration.

Cocoa mass 1 (CXL) None established Not being supported for reregistration.

Cranberry 3 (CXL) None established Not being supported for reregistration.

Currant, Red, White 0.5 (CXL) None established Not being supported for reregistration.

Eggs 0.1 (CXL) None established The Agency will re calculate the maximum theoretical dietary burden for livestock animals and re evaluate the adequacy of the available animal feeding studies when the required nature of the residue data in plants have been received and evaluated.

Endive 2 (CXL) None established Not being supported for reregistration. Codex Reassessed U. S. Tolerance, ppm 1 Codex Comments Commodity, As Defined MRL in mg/ kg (Step)

9 Grapes 0.5 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Kohlrabi 1 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration Lettuce, Head 2 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Meat of cattle, pigs, and sheep 2 (CXL) 0.01 (cattle and sheep) See "Eggs"

Milks 0. 1 (CXL) 0. 01 See "Eggs"

Pear 0.5 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Peas (pods and succulent = immature seeds) 0.1 (CXL) None established Not being supported for reregistration.

Plums (including prunes) 0.5 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Potato 0.05 (CXL) None established Not being supported for reregistration.

Poultry meat 0.7 (CXL) None established See "Eggs"

Radish 1 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Rape seed 0.05 (CXL) None established Not being supported for reregistration.

Spinach 2 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Strawberry 3 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

Sugar beet 0.1 (CXL) None established Not being supported for reregistration.

Sugar beet leaves or tops 0.1 CXL) None established Not being supported for reregistration.

Tomato 2 (CXL) Revoke Not being supported for reregistration.

1 Reassessed U. S. tolerances pending compliance by the registrants with the recommendations specified in "GLN 860.1200: Directions for Use" section of this Chapter. 2 Postharvest treatment of the commodity.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 81 (Monday, April 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23389-23392]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08815]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88717; File No. SR-NYSE-2020-36]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Provide a Longer Period for Listed Companies To Regain Compliance With
Its $50 Million Market Capitalization/Stockholders' Equity and $1.00
Price Continued Listing Requirements by Tolling the Compliance Periods
Through and Including June 30, 2020

April 21, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that on April 20, 2020, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 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 provide a longer period for listed
companies to regain compliance with its $50 million market
capitalization and $1.00 price continued listing requirements by
tolling compliance periods through and including June 30, 2020. The
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts 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 U.S. and global equities markets have experienced unprecedented
market-wide declines as a result of the ongoing spread of COVID-19. As
a consequence, since the commencement of the current market turbulence
in the last week of February 2020, the Exchange has experienced an
unusually high number (as compared to historical levels) of listed
companies:
     That have been designated, or may soon be designated, as
below compliance with continued listing standards, as set forth in
Section 802.01B and become subject to a maximum 18-month cure period
(pursuant to the procedures set forth in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 as
applicable), as a consequence of having both stockholders' equity of
less than $50 million and an average global market capitalization over
a consecutive 30 trading-day period of less than $50 million (the ``$50
Million Standard''); or
     that have stock prices that have fallen below the
Exchange's $1.00 price requirement for capital and common stock set
forth in Section 802.01C of the Manual (i.e., the average closing price
of their stock has fallen below $1.00 over a consecutive 30 trading day
period) (the ``Dollar Price Standard'') and that are consequently
subject to a six months compliance plan period (as set forth in Section
802.01C) or that may imminently fall below compliance with that listing
standard.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For illustrative purposes, the Exchange notes that the
number of listed companies with a trading price below $1.00 as of
the date of this filing is approximately 10 times as many as was the
case on the last trading day of 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the conditions described above, the Exchange
proposes to provide a longer period of time to regain compliance with
the $50 Million Standard and Dollar Price Standard by tolling the
applicable compliance periods through June 30, 2020 (the ``Tolling
Period''). The Exchange proposes to continue to identify companies that
fall below the $50 million Standard and the Dollar Price Standard
during the Tolling Period and inform such companies of their
noncompliance. Any companies notified of noncompliance during the
Tolling Period would have to meet the press release requirements under
Section 802.02 or 802.03 (for companies identified as below the $50
Million Standard) or Section 802.01C (for companies identified as below
the Dollar Price Standard) and, where applicable, will be subject to
the Form 8-K disclosure requirement under SEC rules.\5\ In addition,
the Exchange would continue to attach a .BC indicator to such
companies' tickers \6\ and would continue to identify them as below
compliance on the Exchange's website during the Tolling Period.
However, any time period for which a company is deemed to be below
compliance during the Tolling Period, would not be counted toward the
maximum applicable compliance plan period of 18 months with respect to
the $50 million Standard or six months with respect to the Dollar Price
Standard. Instead, all applicable compliance plan periods for companies
newly identified as below compliance with these listing standards
during the Tolling Period would be calculated as beginning on July 1,
2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange encourages companies to issue the required
press release as promptly as possible.
    \6\ While the Exchange attaches a .BC indicator to the tickers
of listed companies that are below compliance when it provides data
to the Consolidated Tape, the Exchange cannot require commercial
data vendors to carry this information on their services and
understands that some of them do not include the .BC indicator in
their data packages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that at the time of the financial crisis it
waived the Dollar Price Standard in its entirety, including ceasing to
identify companies as newly below compliance with that standard during
the period of the relief and freezing for that period the compliance
periods of companies that had previously been identified as
noncompliant with the Dollar Price Standard.\7\ In its conversations
with listed companies, the Exchange has learned that many companies are
experiencing severe disruptions to their businesses during the current
crisis, including employees who have contracted the COVID-19 virus and
the need to adopt emergency measures to protect their employees from
infection. The Exchange believes that it is undesirable to impose on
companies in the midst of this crisis the additional burden of
attempting to return to compliance with these market price-based
standards while the crisis is ongoing, which may be unrealistic for
many companies in the immediate term whereas their prospects may be
better once the current extraordinary conditions have passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59510 (March 4,
2009), 74 FR 10636 (March 11, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-21) (suspending
the dollar price requirement through June 30, 2009). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60273 (July 9, 2009), 74 FR
34606 (July 16, 2009) (SR-NYSE-2009-64) (extending the suspension of
the dollar price requirement through July 31, 2009).

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

    The Exchange's proposed application of the Tolling Period in
relation to the $50 Million Standard and the Dollar Price Standard is
in addition to the ongoing temporary suspension of the $15 million
market capitalization standard of Section 802.01B through and including
June 30, 2020, with respect to which the Exchange submitted an earlier
rule filing.\8\ The extreme volatility and the precipitous decline in
trading prices of many securities experienced in the U.S. and global
equities markets could lead to a high number of securities being deemed
to be below compliance with continued listing standards during a short
period of highly volatile markets. The proposed Tolling Period would
provide temporary relief to these companies and their shareholders in
response to these extraordinary market conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88441 (March 20,
20020), 85 FR 17136 (March 26, 20020) (SR-NYSE-2020-21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposed Tolling Period, the compliance period of any
company that is in a compliance period for non-compliance with the $50
Million Standard at the time of commencement of the Tolling Period
would have this compliance period tolled and recommence on July 1,
2020. Consistent with Sections 802.02 and 802.03, a company that is
operating under a compliance plan for non-compliance with the $50
Million Standard as of the date of this filing would be deemed to be
back in compliance with continued listing requirements if at any time,
including during the Tolling Period, the company is able to demonstrate
(1) compliance with the $50 Million Standard, or (2) the ability to
qualify under an original listing standard, in each case for a period
of two consecutive quarters.
    Notwithstanding this proposal, companies will be required to submit
compliance plans within the applicable time frames set forth in
Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Manual, and the Exchange will review
companies' progress under their plans on a quarterly basis during the
Tolling Period as provided by those rules. In addition, Sections 802.02
and 802.03 provide the Exchange with the authority to commence
delisting proceedings against a company prior to the end of the maximum
compliance plan period if the company fails to meet the material
aspects of the compliance plan accepted by the Exchange or any of the
quarterly milestones in that plan. This proposal does not in any way
limit the Exchange's authority to take such action where it deems
appropriate.
    Under the proposed application of the Tolling Period in relation to
the Dollar Price Standard, the compliance period of any company that is
in a compliance period at the time of commencement of the Tolling
Period would have this compliance period tolled and recommence on July
1, 2020. Consistent with the normal application of the rule, companies
that are in a compliance period at the time of commencement of the
Tolling Period would be deemed to have regained compliance during the
Tolling Period if, at the expiration of their respective six-month cure
periods established prior to the commencement of the Tolling Period,
they have a $1.00 closing share price on the last trading day of the
period and a $1.00 average share price based on the preceding 30
trading days (e.g., a company that is currently in a compliance period
with a specified end date of May 30, 2020, will be deemed to have
returned to compliance if it meets the applicable requirements on May
30, notwithstanding the fact that the Tolling Period will be in effect
at that time, and if it does not return to compliance as of May 30, it
will have its compliance period tolled through June 30. In addition,
consistent with the normal application of the rule, any company that is
in a compliance period at the time of commencement of the Tolling
Period can return to compliance during the Tolling Period earlier that
the specified end date for its compliance period if such company has
both a $1.00 closing share price on the last trading day of any
calendar month during the previously-established compliance period and
a $1.00 average share price based on the 30 trading days preceding the
end of such month.
    The proposed adoption of the Tolling Period does not provide any
additional compliance period to any company with respect to which the
Exchange has commenced delisting proceedings prior to the date of this
filing, including those that have exercised their appeal right.
    The Exchange would be able to implement the proposed rule change
immediately upon effectiveness of this proposed rule change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and 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 is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of uncertainty related to the ongoing spread of the
COVID-19 virus, the prices of securities listed on U.S. exchanges have
been experiencing rapid and significant changes. The proposed rule
change is designed to reduce uncertainty by extending time periods to
regain compliance with continued listing standards during the current
highly unusual market conditions, thereby protecting investors,
facilitating transactions in securities, and removing an impediment to
a free and open market. Notwithstanding the tolling of the compliance
periods, important investor protections will remain, including that
investors will be able to identify companies that are non-compliant
with the requirements on the Exchange's website, including for newly-
identified companies whose compliance periods have been tolled during
the Tolling Period, and the Exchange will append a .BC indicator to
such companies' tickers when providing data to the Consolidated Tape.
In addition, companies that become newly non-compliant with the
applicable continued listing standards will have to notify investors by
issuing a press release as required under NYSE rules and, where
required by SEC rules, a Form 8-K. With exception of companies that are
currently in delisting proceedings, all companies listed on the
Exchange that are currently below compliance with the $50 Million
Standard or the Dollar Price Standard as of the time of filing of this
proposal, or that fall below those standards after the submission of
this proposal, would be eligible to take advantage of the proposed
tolling period.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is
not designed to address any competitive issues but rather is designed
to reduce uncertainty for certain companies and their shareholders by
providing additional time for companies to regain compliance. In
addition, the proposed rule change is not designed to have any

effect on intermarket competition but instead seeks to address concerns
the Exchange has observed surrounding the application of the $50
Million Price Requirement and the Dollar Price Requirement to companies
listed on the Exchange. Other exchanges can craft relief based on their
own rules and observations.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\14\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
stated that the proposed rule change is designed to respond to the
unprecedented uncertainty and resulting market declines related to the
global spread of the COVID-19 virus. Specifically, the Exchange stated
that the proposed rule change is designed to reduce uncertainty for
certain companies and their shareholders by providing additional time
for companies that are below compliance with the $50 Million Standard
and the Dollar Price Standard to regain compliance with these standards
during the current highly unusual market conditions. The Exchange also
stated that investors will still be able to identify companies that are
non-compliant with the requirements on the Exchange's website and the
Exchange will continue to append a .BC indicator to those companies'
tickers when providing data to the Consolidated Tape. In addition, the
Exchange noted that it will continue to notify companies about new
instances of non-compliance and any newly non-compliant companies will
have to notify investors by issuing a press release and, where required
by SEC rules, a Form 8-K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that while the proposal provides additional
time for companies to comply with the $50 Million Standard and the
Dollar Price Standard, new companies that are deficient with these
standards during the Tolling Period will still continue to be notified
by the Exchange of the deficiency as they currently would be under
normal circumstances with no Tolling Period, and would continue to be
required to notify investors by issuing a press release as required
under NYSE rules and, where required by SEC rules, a Form 8-K.\15\ In
addition, the Exchange will continue to attach a .BC indicator to the
tickers of companies that fall below the $50 Million Standard and the
Dollar Price Standard during the Tolling Period, including companies
newly identified during the Tolling Period, and will continue to
identify such companies as below compliance on the Exchange's website
during the Tolling Period, so that shareholders and the public will
have access to such information as they normally would without the
Tolling Period. Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 802.02 and
802.03 of the Manual, companies below compliance will continue to be
required to submit compliance plans within the applicable time frames
set forth therein and the Exchange will continue to review companies'
progress under their plans on a quarterly basis during the Tolling
Period. The Commission notes that the additional time to comply with
the standards is meant to address the current unusual market conditions
while continuing to ensure that shareholders and the public have
relevant and accurate information concerning a company's deficiency
with the $50 Million Standard and the Dollar Price Standard. The
Commission also notes that the proposal is a temporary measure designed
to respond to current, unusual market conditions. For these reasons,
the Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay
and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Commission notes that the Exchange encourages companies
to issue the required press release as promptly as possible. See
supra note 5.
    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \17\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSE-2020-36 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-NYSE-2020-36. 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 (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the

Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSE-2020-36 and should be submitted on or before May 18, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08815 Filed 4-24-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P