[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17207-17212]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08211]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85693; File No. SR-MIAX-2019-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule

April 18, 2019.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 11, 2019, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a 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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to adjust and adopt certain SPIKES
transaction fees. The Exchange initially filed the proposal on March
29, 2019 (SR-MIAX-2019-18). That filing has been withdrawn and replaced
with the current filing (SR-MIAX-2019-20).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange adopted its initial SPIKES transaction fees on
February 15, 2019.\3\ The Exchange now proposes to amend the Fee
Schedule to adjust and adopt certain SPIKES transaction fees.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to (i) adopt new fees for SPIKES
Combinations; \4\ (ii) change the complex fees so that complex orders
are charged the same fees as simple orders of the same Origin (and
combined in the same fee table), using the simple maker and taker fee
structure already in place; (iii) adjust the number of contracts in the
Simple Large Trade Discount Threshold, adjust the number of contracts
in the Complex Large Trade Discount Threshold, and create a new, stand-
alone column in the table for the Complex Large Trade Discount; (iv)
establish a new PRIME Large Trade Discount and a new cPRIME Large Trade
Discount; and (v) make a non-substantive, technical change to the Fee
Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 85283 (March 11, 2019),
84 FR 9567 (March 15, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-11). (The Exchange
initially filed the proposal on February 15, 2019 (SR-MIAX-2019-04).
That filing was withdrawn and replaced with (SR-MIAX-2019-11)).
    \4\ A ``Combination'' is a purchase (sale) of a SPIKES call
option and the sale (purchase) of a SPIKES put option having the
same expiration date and strike price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPIKES Combinations
    The Exchange is proposing to adopt new transaction fees for SPIKES
Combinations. A SPIKES Combination is a specific type of complex order,
which will have separate pricing from all other SPIKES complex orders.
The Exchange is proposing to insert the definition of a SPIKES
Combination beneath the SPIKES Simple and Complex Fees table on its Fee
Schedule. Generally, a SPIKES Combination is a type of complex strategy
that is designed to replicate the exposure provided by a futures
contract. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to have separate
transaction fees for SPIKES Combinations, which will be significantly
lower than the transaction fees for all other types of SPIKES complex
orders, with the exception of complex orders for Priority Customers \5\
(which are assessed at the same rate--$0.00 per contract). For all
Origins other than Priority Customer, the Exchange is proposing a
transaction fee of $0.01 per contract, per leg for SPIKES Combinations.
Additionally, the Exchange is proposing to add a note beneath the
SPIKES Simple and Complex Fees table clarifying that, if a complex
strategy contains both a Combination component as well as a non-
Combination component, the portion (i.e., legs) of the complex strategy
that comprises the SPIKES Combination will be charged at the
Combination rate, and the portion of the complex strategy that
comprises the non-Combination component will be charged at the
applicable complex rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Priority Customer: Means a person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial account(s). See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Complex Fees
    The Exchange is proposing to change the complex fees so that
complex orders (other than SPIKES Combinations) are charged the same
fees as simple orders or quotes of the same Origin (and combined in the
same fee table), using the simple maker and taker fee structure already
in place. Currently, the Exchange charges a single fee for complex
orders based on Origin, regardless of whether such order was a maker or
a taker. As proposed, the Exchange will now charge complex orders,
depending on whether such order is a maker or a taker, and based on the
Origin. Except for Priority Customer Origin (which will be assessed a
charge of $0.00 per contract, whether maker or taker), all Origins will
be charged the same maker or taker rate for complex orders as the
Origin is currently charged for simple orders or quotes. For MIAX
Market Maker and Firm Proprietary Origins, the maker rate is $0.00 and
the taker rate is $0.20 per contract. Additionally, for MIAX Market
Maker and Firm Proprietary Origins, taker fees for options with a
premium price of $0.10 or less will be charged $0.05 per contract for
Complex orders. For non-MIAX Market Maker, Broker-Dealer, and Public
Customer that is not a Priority Customer Origins, the maker rate is
$0.10 and the taker rate is $0.25 per contract. The Exchange also
proposes to clarify the rates that apply to all Origins in a Complex
Auction.\6\ In a Complex Auction, Priority Customer Origin will be
charged the complex maker rate. Origins that are not a Priority
Customer will be charged the applicable complex taker rate. The
Exchange proposes to add a note beneath the Simple and Complex Fees
table clarifying such fee applicability for quotes/orders executed in a
Complex Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A ``Complex Auction'' is an auction of a complex order as
set forth in Exchange Rule 518(d). See Exchange Rule 518(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simple and Complex Large Trade Discount Thresholds
    The Exchange currently has in place a Simple/Complex Large Trade
Discount. Pursuant to such discount program, for any single order/
quote, no fee applies to the number of contracts executed above the
threshold amount. The threshold amount is currently set at 175,000
contracts, and applies to both simple and complex orders of all Origins
(except for Priority Customer Origin, which has a threshold amount of
0, because Priority Customer orders are assessed a fee of $0.00 for
simple and complex volume). The Exchange now proposes to create a
separate Large Trade Discount Threshold for both simple and complex
orders, and to lower the threshold amounts for each. As proposed, a
simple order that reaches the proposed size threshold of 10,000
contracts, tied to a single order, will have the relevant fees apply to
the contracts at and below the size threshold for simple volume; no
fees shall apply to the number of contracts executed above the
threshold, with certain exceptions. As proposed, a

complex order that reaches the proposed size threshold of 25,000
contracts, tied to a single order, will have the relevant fees apply to
the contracts at and below the size threshold for complex volume; no
fees shall apply to the number of contracts executed above the
threshold, with certain exceptions. In the case of each discount
program, the exceptions are the same and are not proposed to be
changed: The Large Trade Discount does not apply to volume from
Priority Customer orders, Maker orders, SPIKES Opening orders, and the
Surcharge.
    Accordingly, for any simple order/quote, no fee shall apply to the
number of contracts executed above the first 10,000 contracts for
simple orders and the first 25,000 contracts for complex orders for
Market Makers, Non-MIAX Market Makers, Broker-Dealers, Firm Proprietary
orders, and Public Customers that are not Priority Customers. The
Exchange is not proposing to change that such discount program does not
apply to Priority Customer orders because, as discussed, the Exchange
is currently charging Priority Customers a $0.00 fee for these volume
segments.
    As proposed, the SPIKES Simple and Complex Fees table will be as
follows:

                                                                Simple and Complex Fees #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Simple/       Simple/
                                      complex       complex       Simple      Combination    Simple large trade discount    Complex large trade discount
              Origin                [yen] maker   [yen] taker   opening ($)     ~! ($)               threshold +                    threshold +
                                        ($)           ($)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Customer................         $0.00         $0.00         $0.00         $0.00  0.............................  0
Market Maker.....................          0.00        * 0.20          0.15          0.01  First 10,000 contracts........  First 25,000 contracts.
Non-MIAX Market Maker............          0.10          0.25          0.15          0.01  First 10,000 contracts........  First 25,000 contracts.
Broker-Dealer....................          0.10          0.25          0.15          0.01  First 10,000 contracts........  First 25,000 contracts.
Firm Proprietary.................          0.00        * 0.20          0.15          0.01  First 10,000 contracts........  First 25,000 contracts.
Public Customer that is Not a              0.10          0.25          0.15          0.01  First 10,000 contracts........  First 25,000 contracts.
 Priority Customer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Taker fees for options with a premium price of $0.10 or less will be charged $0.05 per contract.
\ A ``SPIKES Combination'' is a purchase (sale) of a SPIKES call option and sale (purchase) of a SPIKES put option having the same expiration date and
  strike price.
\!\ The SPIKES Combination portion of a SPIKES Combination Order will be charged at the Combination rate and other legs will be charged at the Complex
  rate. All fees are per contract per leg.
+ Tied to Single Order/Quote ID. For any single order/quote, no fee shall apply to the number of contracts executed above the Simple or Complex Large
  Trade Discount Threshold. This discount does not apply to Priority Customer orders, Maker orders, SPIKES Opening orders, and the Surcharge.
[yen] For quotes/orders in a Complex Auction, Priority Customer Complex Orders will receive the Complex Maker rate. Origins that are not a Priority
  Customer will be charged the applicable Complex Taker rate.

PRIME and cPRIME Large Trade Discounts
    The Exchange further proposes to establish a Large Trade Discount
program for both PRIME \7\ and cPRIME \8\ orders in SPIKES. These
discount programs will operate in the same manner as the discount
programs for simple and complex orders, and will have the same
threshold amounts, with one exception described below relating to
Priority Customer Origin. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
establish a Large Trade Discount Threshold for PRIME orders in the
amount of 10,000 contracts. A PRIME order that reaches the proposed
size threshold of 10,000 contracts, tied to a single order, will have
the relevant fees apply to the contracts at and below the size
threshold for PRIME volume; no fees shall apply to the number of
contracts executed above the threshold, with certain exceptions
described below. Since a PRIME order is a paired order, the transaction
fee will be capped at 10,000 contracts from a single order, for the
Agency Side and Contra Side, independently. Contracts greater than the
threshold will not be charged the transaction fee but will continue to
be charged the Surcharge. Responder fees and Break-up Credits will not
be capped. The Exchange notes that, unlike the Simple and Complex Large
Trade Discount programs, there is a non-zero threshold amount for
Priority Customer Origin, which is the same amount as all other
Origins. The purpose for having a cap for Priority Customer Origin in
the PRIME Large Trade Discount program is because Priority Customer
Origin is currently assessed a fee of $0.20 per contract if it is a
Contra in the execution. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to apply the cap to Priority Customer Origin in this
circumstance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ PRIME is a process by which a Member may electronically
submit for execution (``Auction'') an order it represents as agent
(``Agency Order'') against principal interest, and/or an Agency
Order against solicited interest. See Exchange Rule 515A(a).
    \8\ cPRIME is the process by which a Member may electronically
submit a ``cPRIME Order'' (as defined in Exchange Rule 518(b)(7)) it
represents as agent (a ``cPRIME Agency Order'') against principal or
solicited interest for execution (a ``cPRIME Auction''). See
Interpretation and Policy .12 of Exchange Rule 515A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to establish a Large Trade
Threshold for cPRIME orders in the amount of 25,000 contracts. A cPRIME
order that reaches the proposed size threshold of 25,000 contracts,
tied to a single order, will have the relevant fees apply to the
contracts at and below the size threshold for cPRIME volume; no fees
shall apply to the number of contracts executed above the threshold,
with certain exceptions described below. Since a cPRIME order is a
paired order, the transaction fee will be capped at 25,000 contracts
that are traded per strategy from a single order, for the Agency Side
and for the Contra Side independently. Contracts greater than the
threshold will not be charged the transaction fee but will continue to
be charged the Surcharge. Responder fees and Break-up Credits will not
be capped. The Exchange notes that, unlike the Simple and Complex Large
Trade Discount programs, there is a non-zero threshold amount for
Priority Customer Origin, which is the same amount as all other
Origins. The purpose for having a cap for Priority Customer Origin in
the cPRIME Large Trade Discount program is because Priority Customer
Origin is currently assessed a fee of $0.20 per contract if it is a
Contra in the execution. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to apply the cap to Priority Customer Origin in this
circumstance.
    As proposed, the SPIKES PRIME and cPRIME Fees table will be as
follows:

                                                                 PRIME and cPRIME Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                PRIME large trade        cPRIME large trade
                Origin                 Initiating ($)    Contra ($)     Responder ($)   Break-up ($)      discount threshold        discount threshold
                                                                                [caret]                   [diam]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Customer....................           $0.00           $0.20           $0.25         ($0.15)  First 10,000 contracts..  First 25,000 contracts
Market Maker.........................            0.10            0.20            0.25          (0.15)  First 10,000 contracts..  First 25,000 contracts
Non-MIAX Market Maker................            0.10            0.20            0.25          (0.15)  First 10,000 contracts..  First 25,000 contracts
Broker-Dealer........................            0.10            0.20            0.25          (0.15)  First 10,000 contracts..  First 25,000 contracts
Firm Proprietary.....................            0.10            0.20            0.25          (0.15)  First 10,000 contracts..  First 25,000 contracts
Public Customer that is Not a                    0.10            0.20            0.25          (0.15)  First 10,000 contracts..  First 25,000 contracts
 Priority Customer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 An Index License Surcharge (``Surcharge'') of $0.075 will apply to any contract that is executed by an Origin except Priority Customer. The Surcharge
  applies per contract side per leg. The Surcharge will be waived for the ``Waiver Period'' which, for purposes of this Section 1)a)xi) of the Fee
  Schedule, means the period of time from the launch of trading of SPIKES options until such time that the Exchange submits a filing to terminate the
  Waiver Period. The Exchange will issue a Regulatory Circular announcing the end of the Waiver Period at least fifteen (15) days prior to the
  termination of the Waiver Period and effective date of such Surcharge.
[caret] The transaction fee for SPIKES PRIME will be capped at 10,000 contracts from a single order, for the Agency Side and Contra Side independently.
  Contracts greater than the threshold will not be charged the transaction fee but will continue to be charged the Surcharge. Responder fees and Break-
  up Credits will not be capped.
[diam] The transaction fee for SPIKES cPRIME will be capped at 25,000 contracts that are traded per strategy from a single order, for the Agency Side
  and for the Contra Side independently. Contracts greater than the threshold will not be charged the transaction fee but will continue to be charged
  the Surcharge. Responder fees and Break-up Credits will not be capped.

    SPIKES Settlement Day SPY Opening Auction Fees

             SPIKES Settlement Day SPY Opening Auction Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            SPY opening
                         Origin                           quotes/ orders
                                                             [curren]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority Customer.......................................           $0.00
Market Maker............................................            0.03
Non-MIAX Market Maker...................................            0.06
Broker-Dealer...........................................            0.06
Firm Proprietary........................................            0.03
Public Customer that is Not a Priority Customer.........            0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[curren] These fees will be charged to each side of all trades occurring
  in the SPY opening in the expiration month used to determine SPIKES
  settlement on settlement day only; in lieu of any other fees in the
  Fee Schedule.

    The Exchange proposes to make a minor non-substantive technical
correction to the SPIKES Settlement Day SPY Opening Auction Fees table.
The Exchange proposes to amend the column heading for SPY Opening
Orders to include Quotes to clarify that the fees listed apply to both
SPY Opening Quotes and Orders. These fees are only applicable on SPIKES
settlement day. The purpose for lower, separate fees for these SPY
transactions is to encourage Market Makers and other market
participants that need to unwind a SPIKES hedge to participate in the
Opening Auction, by making the pricing more attractive.
    The Exchange believes that each of the proposed SPIKES transaction
fee changes described herein are reasonable in that they are designed
to encourage market participants to provide liquidity for SPIKES index
options on the Exchange.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \10\ in particular, in
that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees
and other charges among Exchange Members \11\ and issuers and other
persons using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general to protect
investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customer, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \11\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPIKES Combinations and Complex Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes for
transactions in SPIKES Combinations and complex orders is consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that they are reasonable, equitable,
and not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed fee changes are
reasonably designed because they are intended to incentivize market
participants to transact in SPIKES index options on the Exchange, which
enables the Exchange to improve its overall competitiveness and
strengthen its market quality for all market participants in SPIKES
index options.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to establish separate
pricing for SPIKES Combinations, in order to encourage trading in
SPIKES Combinations on the Exchange. Generally, a SPIKES Combination is
a type of complex strategy that is designed to replicate the exposure
provided by a futures contract. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it
is appropriate to have separate transaction fees for SPIKES
Combinations, which will be significantly lower than the transaction
fees for all other types of complex orders, with the exception of
complex orders for Priority Customers (which are assessed at the same
rate--$0.00 per contract). A SPIKES Combination will be charged lower
fees than a standard SPIKES complex order. The Exchange also believes
combining complex maker and taker fees with the respective simple maker
and taker fees simplifies the Exchange's fee structure, which benefits
investors as it clarifies the Exchange's fees and reduces the risk of
confusion.

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory to apportion Complex Auction fees among
participants by Origin. Priority Customer Complex orders will be
assessed the Complex Maker rate of $0.00 per contract, and Origins that
are not a Priority Customer will be charged the applicable Complex
Taker rate. During a Complex Auction there is no Maker/Taker
distinction, therefore the Exchange will assign a role, and applicable
fee, based upon Origin. The Exchange notes that other exchanges employ
this methodology in similar circumstances.\13\ The Exchange believes
this a fair and equitable way to apportion fees among participants in a
Complex Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Nasdaq GEMX Options 7, Section 3, Footnote 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed SPIKES Combination fees and complex fees are
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they
will apply similarly to Priority Customer orders, Market Maker orders,
Non-MIAX Market Maker orders, Broker Dealer orders, Firm Proprietary
orders, and Public Customers that are not Priority Customers orders, in
each respective category of SPIKES index option orders. All similarly
situated categories of participants are subject to the same transaction
fee and rebate schedule, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms
that are not unfairly discriminatory.
    The exchanges in general have historically aimed to improve markets
for investors and develop various features within market structure for
customer benefit. The Exchange assesses Priority Customers lower or no
transaction fees because Priority Customer order flow enhances
liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market participants.
Priority Customer liquidity benefits all market participants by
providing more trading opportunities, which attracts Market Makers. An
increase in the activity of these market participants in turn
facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an additional
corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes that assessing all other market
participants that are not Priority Customers a higher transaction fee
than Priority Customers for SPIKES Combinations and complex orders is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because these
types of market participants are more sophisticated and have higher
levels of order flow activity and system usage. This level of trading
activity draws on a greater amount of system resources than that of
Priority Customers. Further, the Exchange believes it is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory to assess all other market participants
that are not Priority Customers, Market Makers, or Firm Proprietary
orders a higher complex maker and taker fees for orders in SPIKES
options because Priority Customers, Market Makers, and Firm Proprietary
orders bring valuable liquidity to the market, which in turn benefits
other market participants. Priority Customer and Firm Proprietary order
flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange for the benefit of all market
participants. Specifically, Priority Customer and Firm Proprietary
order flow liquidity benefits all market participants (as Priority
Customer and Firm Proprietary orders are generally providers of
liquidity) by providing more robust trading opportunities, which
attracts Market Makers. An increase in the activity of these market
participants in turn facilitates tighter spreads, which may cause an
additional corresponding increase in order flow from other market
participants, which in turn benefits the market as a whole.
Simple and Complex Large Trade Discount Thresholds
    The Exchange believes reducing the Large Trade Discount Threshold
for simple orders or quotes from 175,000 to 10,000 is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it provides an
incentive for Members to submit large sized simple orders or quotes to
the Exchange, which will benefit all market participants. All similarly
situated categories of participants are subject to the same threshold
(except for Priority Customers which are not charged a transaction fee
otherwise, so no discount is necessary), and access to the Exchange is
offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. Additionally,
the Exchange believes that creating a separate Large Trade Discount for
complex orders at 25,000 contracts is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory because it provides an incentive for Members to
submit large sized complex orders to the Exchange, which will benefit
all market participants. All similarly situated categories of
participants are subject to the same threshold (except for Priority
Customers which are not charged a transaction fee otherwise, so no
discount is necessary), and access to the Exchange is offered on terms
that are not unfairly discriminatory.
PRIME and cPRIME Large Trade Discounts
    The Exchange believes that offering Members a Large Trade Discount
for PRIME orders and cPRIME orders with identical thresholds as those
proposed for simple and complex orders, respectively, is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it provides an
incentive for Members to submit large sized PRIME and cPRIME liquidity
to the Exchange, which will benefit all market participants. All
similarly situated categories of participants are subject to the same
discount, and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not
unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory to not cap Responder fees as there is no cap on
corresponding Break-up Credits. The Exchange believes it is necessary
to provide Break-up Credits in order to incentivize Members to submit
PRIME and cPRIME orders to the Exchange, which provides important price
improvement opportunities for Agency orders. The Exchange notes that
other exchanges exclude response fees from fee caps as well, including
Nasdaq ISE, which excludes Crossing Orders from the firm fee cap.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Nasdaq ISE, Options 7, Section 6(H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPIKES Settlement Day SPY Opening Auction Fees
    The non-substantive technical change proposed to the column heading
for SPY Opening Orders to include Quotes promotes just and equitable
principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general
protects investors and the public interest by providing additional
detail and clarity regarding fees charged by the Exchange. It is in the
best interest of investors and the public for fees to be as clear and
concise as possible so that investors and the public may make informed
decisions regarding their orders.
    The purpose for adopting lower, separate fees for these SPY
transactions is to encourage Market Makers and other market
participants that need to unwind a SPIKES hedge to participate in the
Opening Auction, by making the pricing more attractive. Specifically,
market participants holding short, hedged SPIKES options could
liquidate that hedge by selling their SPY options series, while traders
holding long, hedged SPIKES options could liquidate their hedge by
buying SPY option series.

These market participants may liquidate their hedges by submitting
SPIKES strategy orders in the appropriate SPY option series during the
SPIKES Special Settlement Auction\15\ on the SPIKES expiration/final
settlement date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Exchange Rule 503, Interpretations and Policies .03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the fee and rebate structure for
transactions involving SPY Opening orders for options that are used in
the calculation of the SPIKES Index on final settlement day is
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it will
apply similarly to Priority Customer orders, Market Maker orders, Non-
MIAX Market Maker orders, Broker Dealer orders, Firm Proprietary
orders, and Public Customers that are not Priority Customers orders, in
each respective category of such orders.
    The Exchange currently applies fees to orders that participate in
the SPIKES Settlement Day SPY Opening Auction.\16\ The Exchange
believes it would not be unfairly discriminatory to apply an identical
fee structure to quotes that participate in the SPIKES Settlement Day
SPY Opening Auction. The Exchange believes that the fee and rebate
structure for transactions involving SPY Opening Quotes for options
that are used in the calculation of the SPIKES Index on final
settlement day is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will apply similarly to all Market Makers.
All similarly situated categories of participants are subject to the
same transaction fee and rebate schedule, and access to the Exchange is
offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 85283 (March 11, 2019),
84 FR 9567 (March 15, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2019-11) (Proposal to amend the
MIAX Options Fee Schedule to adopt transaction fees and rebates for
SPIKES index option orders and quotes).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 believes that the
proposed change will enhance the competitiveness of the Exchange
relative to other exchanges that offer their own singly-listed
products. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees and rebates for
transactions in SPIKES index options are not going to have an impact on
intra-market competition based on the total cost for participants to
transact in such order types versus the cost for participants to
transact in other order types available for trading on the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues and
competing products if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract
order flow to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change reflects this competitive environment because it is
adjusting its fees in a manner that encourages market participants to
provide liquidity in SPIKES index options, and to attract additional
transaction volume to the Exchange.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor 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,\17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \18\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2019-20 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-MIAX-2019-20. 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-MIAX-2019-20 and should be submitted on
or before May 15, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08211 Filed 4-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 9, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 26947]
[DOCID:fr09my06-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-323-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

May 2, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 26, 2006, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP
(Texas Eastern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 583 and Third
Revised Sheet No. 602 proposed to be effective May 27, 2006.
    Texas Eastern states that copies of its filing have been mailed to
all affected customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6968 Filed 5-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27681-27685]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0005]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 26 individuals
for exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. 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.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 13, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0005 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001.

Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations 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.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 26 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Lyle R. Bell

    Mr. Bell, 64, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
incident in 1994. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2014, his optometrist stated, ``At this point, Lyle has the same vision
left eye that he has been driving with for the past 10 years. He is
used to seeing with monocular vision and has learned to compensate for
his lack of depth perception by using other visual clues [sic]. He has
sufficient vision in his left eye to perform driving tasks of a
commercial vehicle, but there is no binocular vision due to only having
one eye.'' Mr. Bell reported that he has driven straight trucks for 48
years, accumulating 2.4 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations
for 30 years, accumulating 3 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Nebraska. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he failed to yield to a
traffic signal.

Tracy L. Bowers

    Mr. Bowers, 51, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye since
2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye,
20/16. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``Based on these findings, I feel Tracy L. Bowers has the visual
abilities to continue operating a commercial motor vehicle in
interstate commerce because the visual loss in his right eye occurred
more than 3 years ago and has been stable since that time.'' Mr. Bowers
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating
225,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 6 years,
accumulating 36,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Bradley E. Buzzell

    Mr. Buzzell, 51, has had amblyopia in his left eye since 1993. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/200.
Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``I certify
that Bradley Buzzell has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Buzzell reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 540,000 miles.
He holds a Class BMC CDL from New Hampshire. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

William C. Christy

    Mr. Christy, 69, has had acute zonal occult outer retinopathy with
central scotoma in his right eye since 2005. The visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``It is my opinion
based on my exam of Mr. Christy, his visual field testing and his
driving history that he is safe to drive a commercial vehicle without
restriction.'' Mr. Christy reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 48 years, accumulating 48,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 48 years, accumulating 576,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Florida. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Gerard J. Cormier

    Mr. Cormier, 51, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
400. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist stated, ``By
this standard, he meets Massachusetts's standard for a Class D license
and can be certified to drive the commercial vehicle both in and out of
Massachusetts without restriction.'' Mr. Cormier reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 33 years, accumulating 264,000 miles. He
holds an operator's license from Massachusetts. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Joe T. Gage

    Mr. Gage, 65, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic incident
during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2014,
his optometrist stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Gage has shown over the
years that he has sufficient vision to perform the task required to
operate a commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Gage reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 47 years, accumulating 14,100 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 47 years, accumulating 3.05 million
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Arkansas. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Hector A. Hernandez

    Mr. Hernandez, 42, has had a corneal transplant in his left eye
since 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``He has a mild degree of visual impairment which should not
interfere with his ability to safely operate/drive a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Hernandez reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 15 years, accumulating 68,250 miles. He holds an operator's license
from Maryland. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Rex G. Holladay

    Mr. Holladay, 60, has retina damage in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1982. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2013, his
optometrist stated, ``I consider Mr. Holladay visually well adapted,
and has adequate visual function to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Holladay reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years,
accumulating 140,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 16
years, accumulating 1.04 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Arkansas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Chester E. Jaycox

    Mr. Jaycox, 58, has had a corneal scar in his right eye since 1989.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left eye, 20/
20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion I feel that Chester Jaycox is able to perform driving
tasks to operate a commercial

vehicle.'' Mr. Jaycox reported that he has driven straight trucks for
33 years, accumulating 1.16 million miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 21 years, accumulating 735,000 miles. He holds a Class
AM CDL from New York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows 1
crash, for which he was not cited, and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Danny J. Johnson

    Mr. Johnson, 51, has had a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
incident in 1988. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2013,
his optometrist stated, ``In my opinion Dan has sufficient vision to
operate a commercial vehicle if it is equipped with adequate mirrors.''
Mr. Johnson reported that he has driven straight trucks for 32 years,
accumulating 320,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 32
years, accumulating 160,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Glenn K. Johnson, Jr.

    Mr. Johnson, 65, has had amblyopia, exotropia, strabismus, and
cataracts in his left eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/30, and in his left eye, 20/400. Following an
examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion,
Mr. Johnson has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a commercial vehicle with his current vision.'' Mr. Johnson
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 45 years,
accumulating 4.95 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from North
Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Terry A. Legates

    Mr. Legates, 27, has optic nerve disorder in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an
examination in 2014, his optometrist stated that, in his medical
opinion, Mr. Legates does have sufficient vision to operate a
commercial motor vehicle. Mr. Legates reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 3.5 years, accumulating 45,500 miles. He holds an
operator's license from Oklahoma. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Charles E. Meis

    Mr. Meis, 66, has had macular degeneration in his right eye since
2009. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/250, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, Charles Meis has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle . .
.'' Mr. Meis reported that he has driven straight trucks for 30 years,
accumulating 1.8 million miles. He holds an operator's license from
Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Ronald B. Mohr

    Mr. Mohr, 57, has retinal scarring in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1979. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, 20/200. Following an examination in 2014, his
optometrist stated, ``It is my medical opinion that Ronald Mohr has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Mohr reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 40 years, accumulating 20,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 30 years, accumulating 600,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Hassan Ourahou

    Mr. Ourahou, 25, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/
200. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``The
patient has significant vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Ourahou reported that he has driven
tractor-trailer combinations for 2 years, accumulating 250,700 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Kentucky. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and 2 convictions for moving violations in a
CMV; in one instance he exceeded the speed limit by 13 MPH; in another
instance, he failed to obey a traffic control device.

Jesus Penuelas

    Mr. Penuelas, 39, has had a macular scar in his right eye since
birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist
stated, ``Mr. Penuelas has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Penuelas reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 13 years, accumulating 975,000
miles. He holds an operator's license from Arizona. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Enoc Ramos III

    Mr. Ramos, 43, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye since
2001. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/100, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist stated,
``I don't foresee a major problem with his operating [sic] commercial
vehicle from a visual perspective.'' Mr. Ramos reported that he has
driven tractor-trailer combinations for 13 years, accumulating 910,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

James T. Rohr

    Mr. Rohr, 73, has had hereditary macular dystrophy in his left eye
since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/40, and in his
left eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist
stated, ``In my professional opinion Mr. Rohr can safely perform the
driving tasks required to operate a private motor vehicle as well as a
commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Rohr reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 40,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 40 years, accumulating 3.8 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

DelRay V. Ryckman

    Mr. Ryckman, 47, has retinal scarring in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1985. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2014,
his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion, DelRay does have
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Ryckman reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 27 years, accumulating 540,000 miles. He holds a Class A3
CDL from South Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Joe Sanchez

    Mr. Sanchez, 56, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
incident in 1983. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/30. Following an examination in
2013,

his optometrist stated, ``He has sufficient vision vision [sic] to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Sanchez reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 19 years, accumulating 728,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 16 years, accumulating 1.46 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Texas. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

James S. Seeno

    Mr. Seeno, 38, has had a retinal detachment in his right eye since
1996. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left eye,
20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``Mr.
Seeno does have sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Seeno reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating 90,000 miles, and
buses for 7 years, accumulating 350,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL
from Nevada. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

George W. Thomas

    Mr. Thomas, 40, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye
since 2007. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his
left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2014, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``I do not have the knowledge of the vision
requirements for a commercial drivers' [sic] license but I am of the
opinion that he has sufficient vision in his right eye to drive and can
receive this licensce [sic] if it is legal for a monocular patient to
have a CDL.'' Mr. Thomas reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 12 years, accumulating 480,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 3 years, accumulating 150,000 miles. He holds a Class
A Commercial Beginner Permit from South Carolina. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Thomas L. Tveit

    Mr. Tveit, 61, has had degenerative myopia in his right eye since
birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``In my opinion, Mr. Tveit has adequate vision to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Tveit reported that he has driven straight trucks for 47
years, accumulating 70,500 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
26 years, accumulating 598,000 miles. He holds a Class A3 CDL from
South Dakota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Bart M. Valiante

    Mr. Valiante, 56, has had a central vein occlusion in his left eye
since 2002. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Valiante has sufficient vision to
perform driving tasks to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Valiante
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 35 years, accumulating
875,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years,
accumulating 875,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Connecticut.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

James W. VanRyswyk

    Mr. VanRyswyk, 69, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/125, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist
stated, ``It is my opinion that Mr. Van Ryswyk [sic] is visually
competent to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. VanRyswyk reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 52 years, accumulating 2.6
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Drake M. Vendsel

    Mr. Vendsel, 21, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his left eye, 20/
60. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``Given
that [Mr. Vendsel has] been driving a ``farm plated'' semi truck [sic]
incident free since the time [Mr. Vendsel was] working for [his] father
on [his father's] farm since [his] early teen years, I would say [Mr.
Vendsel has] sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Vendsel reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 7 years, accumulating 42,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 18,000 miles. He holds
an operator's license from North Dakota. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business June 13, 2014. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

Submitting Comments

    You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail,
or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA
recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA
can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
in the search box insert the docket number FMCSA-2014-0005 and click
the search button. When the new screen appears, click on the blue
``Comment Now!'' button on the right hand side of the page. On the new
page, enter information required including the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. If you submit your comments by mail or
hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\
by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit
comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility,
please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    We will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble, To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and in the search box insert the docket number
FMCSA-2014-0005 and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket
Folder'' and you will find all documents and comments related to the
proposed rulemaking.

    Issued on: May 8, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-11086 Filed 5-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P