[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 62 (Tuesday, March 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17925-17927]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06609]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88475; File No. SR-CBOE-2020-018]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Update
the Silexx Fee Schedule

March 25, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 13, 2020, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``Cboe
Options'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.

The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes a rule change to include language within the
Silexx Fees Schedule to introduce a free upgrade for users on Silexx
Basic to Silexx Pro from March 13, 2020 through April 30, 2020.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to include language within the Silexx
Fees Schedule to introduce a free upgrade for users on Silexx Basic to
Silexx Pro from March 13, 2020 through April 30, 2020.
    By way of background, the Silexx platform consists of a ``front-
end'' order entry and management trading platform (also referred to as
the ``Silexx terminal'') for listed stocks and options that supports
both simple and complex orders,\3\ and a ``back-end'' platform which
provides a connection to the infrastructure network. From the Silexx
platform (i.e., the collective front-end and back-end platform), a
Silexx user has the capability to send option orders to U.S. options
exchanges, send stock orders to U.S. stock exchanges (and other trading
centers), input parameters to control the size, timing, and other
variables of their trades, and also includes access to real-time
options and stock market data, as well as access to certain historical
data. The Silexx platform is designed so that a user may enter orders
into the platform to send to an executing broker (including Trading
Permit Holders (``TPHs'')) of its choice with connectivity to the
platform, which broker will then send the orders to Cboe Options (if
the broker is a TPH) or other U.S. exchanges (and trading centers) in
accordance with the user's instructions.\4\ The Silexx front-end and
back-end platforms are a software application that are installed
locally on a user's desktop. Silexx grants users licenses to use the
platform, and a firm or individual does not need to be a TPH to license
the platform. Use of Silexx is completely optional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The platform also permits users to submit orders for
commodity futures, commodity options and other non-security products
to be sent to designated contract markets, futures commission
merchants, introducing brokers or other applicable destinations of
the users' choice.
    \4\ Silexx does not allow users to send orders directly to the
Exchange or other market centers; however, an additional version of
the Silexx platform, Silexx FLEX, supports the trading of FLEX
Options and allows authorized Users with direct access to the
Exchange. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87028 (September
19, 2019) 84 FR 50529 (September 25, 2019) (SR-CBOE-2019-061).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Free Upgrade
    Silexx Basic is an order-entry and management system that provides
basic functionality including real-time data, alerts, trade reports,
views of exchange books, management of the customer's orders and
positions, simple and complex order tickets, and basic risk features.
Users are currently charged $200 per month per Login ID for Silexx
Basic. Silexx Pro offers the same functionality as the basic platform
plus additional features including an algorithmic order ticket,
position analysis, charting, earnings and dividend information, delta
hedging tools, volatility skews, and additional risk features. Users
are currently charged $400 per month per Login ID for Silexx Pro.
    The Exchange proposes to introduce a free-upgrade period for users
that are currently on Silexx Basic. This upgrade would allow users of
Silexx Basic to use the functionality of Silexx Pro from March 13, 2020
through April 30, 2020) at the current Silexx Basic rate of $200 per
month per Login ID. After this period ends, beginning May 1, 2020,
those users who upgraded will be charged at the Silexx Pro rate of $400
per month until they choose to downgrade. The Exchange notes that the
upgrade to Silexx Pro is optional.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of an 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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particularly, the Exchange believes the proposed is reasonable,
equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because the free upgrade
will apply to all current users of Silexx Basic who wish to upgrade.
Additionally, the free upgrade period will be limited through April 30,
2020. Finally, the Exchange notes that use of the platform, including
the upgrade, is discretionary and not compulsory, and users may
downgrade or cancel their Login IDs with Silexx at any time.

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

    Cboe Options does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intramarket
competition because the proposed rule changes apply to all users of
Silexx. The Exchange notes that each version of Silexx is available to
all market participants, and users have discretion to determine which
version of the platform they register for based on functionality.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose

any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed change applies only to Cboe Options. To the extent that the
proposed changes make Cboe Options a more attractive marketplace for
market participants at other exchanges, such market participants are
welcome to become Cboe Options market participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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) of the Act \8\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2020-018 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-CBOE-2020-018. 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-CBOE-2020-018 and should be submitted on
or before April 21, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-06609 Filed 3-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 122 (Monday, June 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 38146]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13635]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-7089-000]

Wynter, Jr., Rudolph L.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on June 6, 2022, Rudolph L. Wynter, Jr. submitted
for filing, application for authority to hold interlocking positions,
pursuant to section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d (b)
and Part 45.8 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR part 45.8.
    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, 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 on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail
similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in
docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 27, 2022.

    Dated: June 21, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13635 Filed 6-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37244-37245]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16741]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81309; File No. SR-NYSE-2017-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Section
102.01B of the NYSE Listed Company Manual To Provide for the Listing of
Companies That List Without a Prior Exchange Act Registration and That
Are Not Listing in Connection With an Underwritten Initial Public
Offering and Related Changes to Rules 15, 104, and 123D

August 3, 2017.
    On June 13, 2017, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend Section 102.01B of the Manual to modify
the provisions relating to the qualification of companies listing
without a prior Exchange Act registration and an underwritten offering
to permit the listing of such companies immediately upon effectiveness
of an Exchange Act registration statement without a concurrent public
offering registered under the Securities Act of 1933 provided the
company meets all other listing requirements. The proposal, also would
(i) eliminate the requirement to have a private placement market
trading price if there is a valuation from an independent third-party
of $250 million in market value of publicly-held shares; (ii) amend
Rule 15 to add a Reference Price for when a security is listed under
Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B; (iii) amend Rule 104 to specify
Designated Market Maker (``DMM'') requirements when a security is
listed under Footnote (E) to Section 102.01B and there has been no
trading in the private market for such security; and (iv) amend Rule
123D to specify that the Exchange may declare a regulatory halt in a
security that is the subject of an initial listing on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on June 20, 2017.\3\ The

Commission received one comment in response to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Exchange filed Amendment No. 1, which supersedes and
replaces the proposed rule change in its entirety, on July 28, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-80933 (June 15,
2017), 82 FR 28200 (June 20, 2017) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See letter to the Commission from James J. Angel, Ph.D.,
CFA, Georgetown University, dated July 28, 2017.
    \5\ Amendment No. 1 removes the proposal to allow the Exchange
to declare a regulatory halt in a security that is the subject of an
initial public offering, and amends the proposed provisions of Rule
15 and Rule 104 relating to private placement market trading and
proposed Rule 123D(d) relating to trading halts for initial
listings. Amendment No. 1 is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2017-30/nyse201730.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of the notice of the filing of a proposed rule change,
or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may
designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission shall approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\7\ designates September 18, 2017, as the
date by which the Commission should approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change
(File No. SR-NYSE-2017-30), as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16741 Filed 8-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28671-28675]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10223]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88837; File Nos. SR-NYSE-2019-46, SR-NYSENAT-2019-19,
SR-NYSEArca-2019-61, SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE
National, Inc.; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE American LLC; Order Granting
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Amend the Exchanges' Co-Location Services To Offer Co-Location Users
Access to the NMS Network

May 7, 2020.

I. Introduction

    On August 22, 2019, New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE National,
Inc., and NYSE Arca, Inc. each 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: (i) Amend their co-location
services to offer co-location Users access to the ``NMS Network''--a
new alternate, dedicated network providing connectivity to data feeds
for the National Market System Plans for which Securities Industry
Automation Corporation (``SIAC'') is engaged as the exclusive
securities information processor (``SIP''); and (ii) establish
associated fees. NYSE American LLC filed with the Commission a
substantively identical filing on August 23, 2019.\3\ The proposed rule
changes were published for comment in the Federal Register on September
10,

2019.\4\ On October 24, 2019, the Commission extended the time period
within which to approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to approve or disapprove the Original Proposal, to
December 9, 2019.\5\ The Commission received one comment letter on the
Original Proposal, a response from the Exchanges, and a second letter
from the original commenter.\6\ On December 9, 2019, the Commission
instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the Original Proposal.\7\ On December 23, 2019, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the Original Proposal. Amendment No. 1, which
superseded and replaced the Original Proposal in its entirety, was
published for comment in the Federal Register on January 15, 2020.\8\
The Commission received one comment letter on the Amended Proposal and
a response from the Exchanges.\9\ The Commission is approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE National, Inc., NYSE
Arca, Inc., and NYSE American, LLC are collectively referred to
herein as ``NYSE'' or the ``Exchanges.''
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 86865 (September 4,
2019), 84 FR 47592 (SR-NYSE-2019-46); 86869 (September 4, 2019), 84
FR 47600 (SR-NYSENAT-2019-19); 86868 (September 4, 2019), 84 FR
47610 (SR-NYSEArca-2019-61); 86867 (September 4, 2019), 84 FR 47563
(SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34) (collectively the ``Original Notice'' or
``Original Proposal''). Page citations to the Original Notice refer
to the Notice for SR-NYSE-2019-46 as published in the Federal
Register.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 87399, 84 FR 58189
(October 30, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2019-46); 87402, 84 FR 58187 (October
30, 2019) (SR-NYSENAT-2019-19); 87400, 84 FR 58189 (October 30,
2019) (SR-NYSEArca-2019-61); 87401, 84 FR 58188 (October 30, 2019)
(SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34).
    \6\ See, respectively, letter dated October 24, 2019 from John
M. Yetter, Vice President and Senior Deputy General Counsel, Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission (``Nasdaq Letter''); letter dated November 8, 2019 from
Elizabeth K. King, Chief Regulatory Officer, ICE, General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary, NYSE to Ms. Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
Commission (``NYSE Response Letter''); and letter dated November 25,
2019 from Joan C. Conley, Senior Vice President and Corporate
Secretary, Nasdaq, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission
(``Second Nasdaq Letter''). All comments received by the Commission
on the proposed rule change are available on the Commission's
website at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2019-46/srnyse201946.htm. NYSE filed a comment letter on behalf of all of
the Exchanges.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87699 (December 9,
2019), 84 FR 68239 (December 13, 2019) (SR-NYSE-2019-46; SR-NYSENAT-
2019-19; SR-NYSEArca-2019-61; SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34) (``Order
Instituting Proceedings'' or ``OIP'').
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Releases No. 87927 (January 9,
2020), 85 FR 2468 (SR-NYSE-2019-46); 87930 (January 9, 2020), 85 FR
2459 (SR-NYSENAT-2019-19); 87929 (January 9, 2020), 85 FR 2453 (SR-
NYSEAMER-2019-34); and 87928 (January 9, 2020), 85 FR 2447 (SR-NYSE-
2019-61) (collectively, ``Amendment No. 1'' or the ``Amended
Proposal''). The Amended Proposal also is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2019-46/srnyse201946-6584636-201247.pdf. Page citations to the Amended Proposal refer to
Amendment No. 1 for SR-NYSE-2019-46 as published in the Federal
Register.
    \9\ See, respectively, letter dated February 5, 2020 from Joan
C. Conley, Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary, Nasdaq, to
Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission (``Nasdaq Letter III'')
and letter dated February 25, 2020 from Elizabeth K. King, Chief
Regulatory Officer, ICE, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary,
NYSE to Ms. Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Commission (``NYSE
Response Letter II''). All comments received by the Commission on
the proposed rule change are available on the Commission's website
at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2019-46/srnyse201946.htm.
NYSE filed a comment letter on behalf of all of the Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1

A. Background

    The Exchanges' affiliate, SIAC, is currently engaged as the
exclusive SIP for three National Market System Plans: (1) The
Consolidated Trade Association (``CTA'') Plan; (2) the Consolidated
Quotation (``CQ'') Plan; and (3) the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA'') Plan.\10\ SIAC operates in the same data center (``Data
Center'') in Mahwah, New Jersey from which the Exchanges operate and
offer co-location services to co-location ``Users.'' \11\ A co-location
``User'' is any market participant that requests to receive co-location
services directly from the Exchange for fees set forth on price lists
filed with the Commission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Amended Proposal, supra note 8, at n. 16.
    \11\ See Amended Proposal, supra note 8, 85 FR at 2469.
    \12\ See Amended Proposal, supra note 8, at n. 10. As stated in
the price list of each of the Exchanges, a User that incurs co-
location fees for a particular co-location service is not subject to
co-location fees for the same co-location service charged by another
of the Exchanges. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Users can connect to the CTA Plan, CQ Plan, and OPRA
Plan data feeds (the ``NMS Feeds'') disseminated by the SIP using
either of the co-location local area networks in the Data Center, which
include the Liquidity Center Network (``LCN'') and IP network.\13\
Currently, a User would need to purchase a service that includes either
a 10 Gb or 40 Gb connection to access the LCN and/or IP network and
connect to the NMS feeds.\14\ Users do not pay an additional or
separate charge to connect to the NMS Feeds via the LCN or IP network,
but rather pay for the bandwidth they determine will meet their needs
in co-location.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id, 85 FR at 2469.
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ Currently, a User that purchases access to the LCN or IP
network also receives the ability to access the trading and
execution systems of the Exchanges, and the trading and execution
systems of OTC Global, an alternative trading system (``ATS''),
subject, in each case, to authorization by the relevant entity; as
well as connectivity to market data products that a User selects
from a list of Included Data Products, subject to technical
provisioning requirements and authorization from the provider of the
data feed. The Included Data Products are the NMS Feeds and the
proprietary feeds of the Exchanges and its affiliate, NYSE Chicago.
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Original Proposal and Order Instituting Proceedings

    As more fully set forth in the Original Notice, the Exchanges
initially proposed to offer access to the new NMS Network and establish
associated fees. The NMS Network would be an alternate, dedicated
network from which co-location Users could access and connect to the
NMS Feeds. The NMS Network would have an anticipated benefit of a one-
way reduction in latency, as compared to the IP network and/or LCN, of
over 140 microseconds. The Exchanges explained that SIAC continually
assesses the services it provides and had been working with the
operating committees of the NMS Plans and the industry-based advisory
committee to the CTA/CQ Plans to identify potential performance
enhancements for the SIP, including one that would address concerns
that access to the NMS Feeds (required to traverse over the IP
network), were subject to an additional layer of latency because the IP
network was not designed as a low-latency network.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Original Notice, supra note 4, 84 FR at 47594.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Original Proposal, a User would have been permitted to
connect to the NMS Feeds via the newly established NMS Network at no
additional charge subject to certain conditions. Specifically, if a
User purchased 10Gb or 40Gb access to the LCN or IP network and
requested a connection to the NMS Network, that User and its
Affiliates,\17\ taken together, would not have been charged for up to
eight corresponding NMS Network connections (each a ``No Additional Fee
NMS Network Connection''), if:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Original Notice, supra note 4, at n. 17, noting that
``Affiliate'' of a User is defined in the price list as ``any other
User or Hosted Customer that is under 50% or greater common
ownership or control of the first User;'' that a ``Hosted Customer''
is a customer of a Hosting User that is hosted in a Hosting User's
co-location space; and a ``Hosting User'' is a User of colocation
services that hosts a Hosted Customer in the User's co-location
space. Hosting Users are subject to Hosting fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Such User, together with its Affiliates, designated no more
than four No Additional Fee NMS Network Connections as corresponding to
the LCN connections of the User, together with its Affiliates, on a
one-to-one basis;
    (ii) such User, together with its Affiliates, designated no more
than four

No Additional Fee NMS Network Connections as corresponding to the IP
network connections of the User, together with its Affiliates, on a
one-to-one basis;
    (iii) such User, together with its Affiliates, did not use the LCN
or IP network connections that correspond to the No Additional Fee NMS
Network Connections to access the NMS Feeds; \18\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Users would still have had the option to connect to the NMS
Feeds using their LCN or IP network connections, but would have been
charged the proposed fee for the NMS Network connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (iv) each of the No Additional Fee NMS Network Connections was of
equal size or smaller than the associated LCN or IP network connection
purchased by it or its Affiliates.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Original Notice, supra note 4, 84 FR at 47594.
Accordingly, a User's access to a 1 Gb connection would not entitle
a User to a No Additional Fee NMS Network Connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, a User that did not satisfy these conditions would
have been subject to an additional or separate charge to access the NMS
Network.\20\ Those seeking an NMS Network connection that did not
qualify as a No Additional Fee NMS Network Connection would have been
assessed: (i) $10,000 per connection initial charge and $11,000/month
for a 10 Gb connection; or (ii) $10,000 per connection initial charge
and $18,000/month for a 40 Gb connection (the same fee assessed for the
same-sized 10 Gb or 40 Gb IP network connection).\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See id. at 47595. According to the Exchanges, Users would
typically be charged separately for access to the NMS Network in
circumstances where they (i) would like to purchase access to the
NMS Network and have not purchased a 10 Gb or 40 Gb LCN or IP
network connection; (ii) have purchased an LCN or IP connection but
would like NMS Network connections in excess of permitted number of
corresponding No Additional Fee NMS Network Connections; and/or
(iii) would like to use their LCN and IP connections to continue to
access the NMS Feeds.
    \21\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received one comment letter on the Original Proposal
from Nasdaq, a response from the Exchanges, and a second letter from
Nasdaq.\22\ In its initial comment letter, Nasdaq observed that the
Exchanges' proposal would permit market participants who separately pay
the Exchanges to connect to their trading venue(s) to receive up to
eight free connections to the faster NMS Network; whereas market
participants who elect a stand-alone connection to the NMS Feeds would
be charged.\23\ Nasdaq expressed concern that the ``commingling,'' or
bundling, of pricing for NMS Network connectivity with connectivity to
the NYSE venues, including access to NYSE proprietary data feeds, would
create a burden on intermarket competition and hinder potential
providers from competing to serve as network processor in place of
SIAC.\24\ In Nasdaq's view, ``[a]ny change to the current processor
would increase costs to market participants that would purchase a
subset of NMS Network Connections from the new provider and continue to
pay the bundled price to NYSE to connect and transact business on
NYSE.'' \25\ Nasdaq also believed that NYSE's failure to offer market
participants the opportunity to acquire NMS Network connections
individually hindered competition.\26\ Finally, Nasdaq took the
position that the Exchanges' proposal would burden intermarket
competition because other exchanges would be unable to couple their
pricing for connectivity to their trading venues with NMS Network
connections.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Nasdaq Letter, NYSE Response Letter, and Second Nasdaq
Letter, supra note 6.
    \23\ See Nasdaq Letter at 1.
    \24\ Id. at 1-2.
    \25\ Id. at 2.
    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges responded by noting that Section 6(b)(8) of the Act
requires that the rules of an exchange not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
Exchange Act.\28\ With respect to Nasdaq's first argument, the
Exchanges took the position that the bidding process to be the
exclusive SIP for an NMS Plan is a commercial competition that is not
intermarket competition as contemplated by the Exchange Act, and that
how (and how much) a bidder chose to charge for connectivity to its SIP
would be part of its bid.\29\ The Exchanges characterized Nasdaq's
second argument as ``baseless'' because market participants would in
fact be able to purchase a stand-alone NMS Network connection.\30\ The
Exchanges expressed the view that Nasdaq's final argument was unfounded
because there inherently is no competition to provide connectivity to
an exclusive SIP.\31\ The Exchanges further stated that while the NMS
Network would be offered at no additional cost to current Users, the
only way to address Nasdaq's concerns would be to increase fees
currently charged to Users to connect to the Exchanges.\32\ In this
regard, the Exchanges observed that Nasdaq's approach to managing its
own fees for connectivity to the UTP SIP Feed (defined below) is
similar to the approach proposed by the Exchanges in that both parties
seek to leverage their existing exchange connectivity fees to keep
costs down for providing connectivity to the relevant SIPs.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See NYSE Response Letter, supra note 6, at 3. They added
that NYSE sought and received approval from both the CTA Operating
Committee and OPRA Management Committee (both of which include
Nasdaq as a member) on the Original Proposal. Id.
    \29\ Id. at 4.
    \30\ Id. at 5.
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id. at 5-7.
    \33\ Id. In making this statement, the Exchanges also
acknowledge that the specific way in which Nasdaq seeks to effect
this outcome is different from what the Exchanges propose (i.e.,
Nasdaq offers UTP NMS Plan customers two free connections and
additional connections for $100 per month).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a second comment letter, Nasdaq stated its general support for
the proposed NMS Network, but reiterated its view that the Exchanges'
proposed fee structure would hamper competitors from bidding to replace
SIAC as the SIP.\34\ According to Nasdaq, if another exchange or third
party became the SIP for one of the three NMS Feeds, market
participants would need to separately connect to two separate
environments to obtain all three NMS Feeds, at increased costs.\35\
Nasdaq urged that NMS Network connectivity should be priced separately
from exchange connectivity, and offered examples of how this could be
accomplished without an increase in NYSE's fees.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Second Nasdaq Letter, supra note 6, at 1-2.
    \35\ Id. at 2.
    \36\ More specifically, Nasdaq suggested that the Exchanges
could: (i) Separately price NMS Network connectivity and NYSE
connectivity; (ii) price each NMS Feed connection separately; or
(iii) separate OPRA NMS Feed connectivity from CTA and CQ NMS Feed
connectivity. See id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission issued an Order Instituting Proceedings, requesting
comment on the NMS Network fee structure set forth in the Original
Proposal.\37\ The Commission highlighted that the Exchanges proposed to
make the NMS Network available at no additional charge to Users that
satisfied certain conditions (as described above) and to impose a
substantial charge on Users seeking access to the NMS Network that did
not satisfy the proposed conditions.\38\ In particular, the Commission
questioned the basis for the level of the proposed fee for a charged
NMS connection ($10,000 initially and $11,000 or $18,000 monthly for a
10 Gb or 40 Gb connection, respectively), as well as whether it was
reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory for only certain
Users to receive NMS Network Connections at no additional charge.\39\
The Commission also solicited comment on whether the revised fee
structure for the NMS Network set forth in the Original Proposal would
impose an

undue burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate under
the Act.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See OIP, supra note 7.
    \38\ Id.
    \39\ Id.
    \40\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Amendment No. 1

    Following the OIP, the Exchanges filed Amendment No. 1. As more
fully set forth in Amendment No. 1, the Exchanges propose to eliminate
the fee changes associated with the proposed new NMS Network
service.\41\ In lieu of establishing conditions for No Additional Fee
NMS Network Connections and proposing separate charged NMS Network
connections, the Exchanges instead propose to offer co-location Users
access to the NMS Network as a new service with no associated fee
changes. To effect this change, the Exchanges propose to amend the
services available to co-location Users to provide that if a User
purchases a service that includes a 10 Gb or 40 Gb IP or LCN network
connection, that purchase would include an NMS Network connection of
the same size.\42\ For co-location Users, the option of receiving
connectivity to the NMS Feeds in co-location would therefore continue
to be included when a User purchases a 10 Gb or 40 Gb network IP or LCN
circuit.\43\ Access to the NMS Network would thus be offered as a
service upgrade, designed to provide co-location Users a one-way
reduction in latency for the NMS Feeds of over 140 microseconds, as
compared to the IP network and LCN, at no additional cost.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Amended Proposal, supra note 8.
    \42\ See Amended Proposal, supra note 8, 85 FR at 2470.
    \43\ Id. More specifically, the Exchanges propose to amend the
sections of the price lists that set forth the services offering the
10 Gb and 40 Gb LCN connection and the 10 Gb and 40 Gb IP connection
and their prices to include an NMS Network connection as part of
each service and to include a note for each service stating that the
connection offered as part of the service and the NMS Network
connection are together considered to be one connection, so Users
are not subject to two initial or two monthly charges. Id.
    \44\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comments on Amendment No. 1 and Exchanges' Response

    Nasdaq submitted a comment letter on Amendment No. 1, objecting
that the Amended Proposal continues to integrate access to the
Exchanges' proprietary products with access to the NMS Feeds in an
improper manner that would impose a burden on competition that is
neither necessary nor appropriate under the Act.\45\ According to
Nasdaq, market participants currently paying for connectivity to NYSE
proprietary data feeds can receive NMS Network connectivity at no
additional cost, but are forced to pay for this connectivity within the
bundled price, and new market participants that only want to receive
NMS Feeds are effectively forced to pay the bundled fees.\46\ In
addition, Nasdaq took the position that, because the OPRA feed is so
large, the bundling with OPRA has the effect of steering all market
participants to consume larger bandwidths at higher cost.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See Nasdaq Letter III, supra note 9, at 1.
    \46\ Id. at 2. The Exchanges responded that all direct
recipients of the NMS Feeds in co-location also connect to one or
more of the Exchanges for trading purposes. See NYSE Response Letter
II, supra note 9, at 3.
    \47\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, the Exchanges state that they do not propose to change
any fee or the availability of any current connectivity option; rather
they propose only to add NMS Network connectivity as a service provided
to co-location Users.\48\ They further state that Nasdaq focuses on
whether existing fees for connectivity to the NMS Feeds are a burden on
competition, but note that that issue is not before the Commission.\49\
Instead, in the Exchanges' view, their proposal would simply add a new
service and provide more choice to Users, allowing them to opt to use
the low-latency NMS Network to connect to NMS feeds.\50\ In addition,
the Exchanges take the position that Nasdaq's claim that such Users are
forced to purchase larger bandwidth has no basis, as there are multiple
reasons why a User would purchase a larger connection, and the
additional capacity provided by the NMS Network should reduce demand
for those larger connections.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See NYSE Response Letter II, supra note 9, at 2.
    \49\ Id. at 2-3. The Exchanges further note that Nasdaq's
objections to the Exchanges bundled fee structure would not be
resolved by approval or disapproval of the Amended Proposal.
    \50\ Id. at 3.
    \51\ Id. at 3. Specifically, the Exchanges state that the
additional capacity provided by the NMS Network will reduce demand
for 40 Gb connections and permit some Users to instead consume NYSE
Exchanges' data over a 10 Gb local area network connection and NMS
Feeds over the complementary 10 Gb NMS Network connection. Id. at n.
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange. In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\52\ which requires that the rules of an exchange be
designed, among other things, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\53\ which prohibits any exchange rule from
imposing any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the Act.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \53\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \54\ In approving this proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15
U.S.C. 78c(f). See discussion below in this Section IV stating the
reasons why the Commission believes that the Amended Proposal, to
provide co-location Users access to the new NMS Network without
associated fee changes, does not impose a burden on competition that
is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Amended Proposal, the Exchanges propose to augment how co-
location Users may connect to the NMS Feeds in the Data Center by
offering them access to the ``NMS Network,'' an upgraded alternative
local area network, and to do so without the associated fee changes
that were part of the Original Proposal. As discussed above, Nasdaq
takes the position that, because the Exchanges' proposal does not
separate pricing for connectivity to the NMS Feeds from pricing for
connectivity to the Exchanges' proprietary products, the proposal
imposes an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition that is
inconsistent with the Act. The Exchanges respond that they simply
propose to offer a new connectivity option for co-location Users
without any fee change and that, regardless, Nasdaq's arguments that
the existing fee structure burdens competition in a manner inconsistent
with the Act are without merit.
    The Commission believes that the Amended Proposal is responsive to
the issues identified in the Order Instituting Proceedings, and that
the Amended Proposal is consistent with the Act. Under the Amended
Proposal, the Exchanges remove the proposed limits on No Additional Fee
NMS Network Connections. Accordingly, under the Amended Proposal, the
Exchanges would provide co-location Users the option to access
consolidated market

data more efficiently through the NMS Network, a new dedicated low-
latency connectivity service, at no additional charge. The Commission
believes that providing market participants the ability to obtain
consolidated market data in a more timely manner in these circumstances
would enhance the utility of this critical component of the national
market system for the benefit of market participants and investors that
rely upon access to consolidated market data to effectuate trades and
otherwise have confidence in the efficiency and integrity of that
system. Thus, the Commission finds the proposal would protect investors
and the public interest and otherwise is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ The Commission also believes that the proposed enhancements
to the provision of consolidated market data are consistent with
past Commission statements that the widespread availability of
timely market information promotes fair and efficient markets. See,
e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 42208 (Dec. 9, 1999), 64
FR 70613, 70614 (Dec. 17, 1999) (Market Information Concept
Release); Concept Release on Equity Market Structure, Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 61358 (Jan. 14, 2010), 75 FR 3593, 3600
(Jan. 21, 2010) (Equity Market Structure Concept Release).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to competition, Nasdaq takes the position that the
Amended Proposal inappropriately burdens competition because the
Exchanges would bundle fees for connectivity to the NMS Feeds with fees
for connectivity to the Exchanges' proprietary products for co-location
Users. In Nasdaq's view, this pricing structure for co-location
services hinders potential competitors from replacing SIAC as processor
for the NMS Feeds, and inappropriately burdens market participants that
may seek connectivity only to the NMS Feeds or to the Exchanges'
proprietary products, or to some subset thereof, in the Exchanges' co-
location facilities. Nasdaq also states that there are alternative ways
the Exchanges could structure the proposal such that connectivity to
the NMS Feeds could be priced separately from exchange connectivity,
and offered examples of how this could be accomplished without an
increase in NYSE's fees.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ See note 36 supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an initial matter, the Commission notes that the proposed rule
change under consideration would not modify the existing fees of the
Exchanges; instead the Exchanges are proposing to offer co-location
Users an enhanced connectivity option for consolidated market data
through the NMS Feeds at no additional charge. Nonetheless, with
respect to Nasdaq's position that the Exchanges' existing pricing
structure hinders potential competitors from replacing SIAC as
processor for the NMS Feeds, and is therefore a burden on intermarket
competition, the Commission does not believe in these circumstances
that potential competitors who are also exchanges, such as Nasdaq, are
inappropriately constrained from offering connectivity to the NMS Feeds
to co-location Users at prices competitive with the Exchanges. As noted
above, Nasdaq, like the Exchanges, provides connectivity to a
consolidated market data feed (the ``UTP SIP Feed''),\57\ as well as
its own proprietary products, at its co-location facility. Whether
connectivity services at co-location facilities are offered for
multiple products or a single product, co-location customers generally
are charged for connectivity by the Exchanges and Nasdaq based on the
number of connections received and the bandwidth thereof.\58\ Thus, the
Commission believes that Nasdaq could propose a comparable pricing
structure that would allow it to compete with the Exchanges.\59\ For
the same reasons, the Commission is also not persuaded that the
Exchanges choosing not to propose the alternative pricing approaches
suggested by Nasdaq renders the proposed rule change an inappropriate
or unnecessary burden on intermarket competition and thus inconsistent
with the Act. Further, the Commission does not believe that Nasdaq's
argument is persuasive with respect to an entity that may not be an
exchange but that wishes to compete for the exclusive SIP contracts
currently held by SIAC. While it is possible that the changes proposed
by the Exchanges could place greater pressure on these would-be
competitors, it does not appear that any such pressure would force
users to pay higher prices than they currently do or that there would
be a loss of desirable alternative bidders for the exclusive SIP
contract. In sum, the Commission does not believe that any such
competitive pressure creates an inappropriate or unnecessary burden on
the competitive landscape in the context of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ The UTP SIP Feed is comprised of a UTP Quote Data Feed
(``UQDF'') and a UTP Trade Data Feed (``UTDF''). The UQDF provides
continuous quotations from all market centers trading Nasdaq-listed
securities. The UTDF provides continuous last sale information from
all market centers trading Nasdaq-listed securities. See http://www.utpplan.com/.
    \58\ See e.g., NYSE Price List and Nasdaq Price Lists,
available, respectively, at: https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf; and https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules/nasdaq-general-8.
    \59\ Nasdaq today offers its co-location customers two free
connections to the UTP SIP Feed and additional connections for a
nominal fee. See https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules/nasdaq-general-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also does not believe that the Exchanges' existing
pricing structure inappropriately burdens either those market
participants that may seek connectivity only to a subset of market data
products, or those that would otherwise be forced into using the NMS
Network connectivity to access OPRA. This is because co-location Users
that desire a small number of market data products are likely to
require fewer connections or less bandwidth, and therefore pay lower
connectivity fees, whereas those that require more connections or more
bandwidth are likely to pay comparatively higher connectivity fees, and
the Exchanges are not proposing to charge an additional fee for access
to the new NMS Network. For all of the foregoing reasons, the
Commission finds that the Amended Proposal, to provide co-location
Users access to the new NMS Network without associated fee changes, is
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which prohibits any
exchange rule from imposing any burden on competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\60\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2019-46, SR-NYSENAT-
2019-19, SR-NYSEArca-2019-61, SR-NYSEAMER-2019-34), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-10223 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: March 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 39)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 9147]
[DOCID:fr01mr10-32]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2009-0860; FRL-9120-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Operating Permits Program; State of
Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve a revision to the Iowa State Operating
Permits Program submitted by the State on February 20, 2009. The
purpose of this revision is to increase emissions fees for the Title V
Operating Permits Program. EPA is proposing to approve this revision
pursuant to section 502 of the Clean Air Act and implementing
regulations.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
March 31, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2009-0860, by mail to Tracey Casburn, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/courier by following the
detailed instructions in the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule
located in the rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracey Casburn at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State's revision as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional
information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: February 16, 2010.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2010-4142 Filed 2-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58856-58860]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23238]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0296]

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 33 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 October 30, 2014. All
comments will be investigated by FMCSA. The exemptions will be issued
the day after the comment period closes.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0296 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, R.N., 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. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. 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 33 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.

II. Qualifications of Applicants

Terry A. Adler

    Mr. Adler, 38, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``His right
eye is slightly amblyopic. He should have no problems operating and
continuing to operate a CMV.'' Mr. Adler reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 18 years, accumulating 180,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 18 years, accumulating 900,000 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.

Richard J. Beck

    Mr. Beck, 57, has had a macular scar and histoplasmosis in his left
eye since 2004. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist
stated, ``It is my opinion that Mr. Richard J. Beck has completed the
above test acurately [sic], and is able to safley [sic] perform the
driving task required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Beck
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 28 years, accumulating
728,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Illinois. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Avis C. Bell

    Mr. Bell, 72, has had a retinal detachment and glaucoma in his
right eye since 2003. The visual acuity in his right eye is no light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/25. Following an

examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``I feel the patients
[sic] vision in his left eye is sufficient to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Bell reported that he
has driven buses for 3 years, accumulating 19,500 miles. He holds a
chauffer's license from Indiana. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Jeffrey L. Bendix

    Mr. Bendix, 44, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/50, and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2013, his optometrist stated, ``In my
medical opinion Jeff Bendix has significant vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Bendix
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating
125,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years,
accumulating 15,000 miles. He holds a Class C3 CDL from South Dakota.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Edward L. Bon

    Mr. Bon, 42, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye
is no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my opinion, his
vision is sufficient to perform his driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Bon reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 6 years, accumulating 90,000 miles. He holds a chauffer's
license from Louisiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

William L. Brady

    Mr. Brady, 57, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/150. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``In my opinion William has sufficient vision to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Brady reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 17 years, accumulating 42,500
miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Kansas. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Marty R. Brewster

    Mr. Brewster, 31, has had amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/80, and in his left
eye, 20/10. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``Mr. Brewster was seen in my office on July 11, 2014 for an exam to
evaluate his vision for renewal of his commercial driver's license . .
. Mr. Brewster is capable of driving any motor vehicle in my
professional opinion.'' Mr. Brewster reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 9 years, accumulating 135,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 9 years, accumulating 67,500 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.

John M. Brown

    Mr. Brown, 50, has had histoplasmosis in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/200, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist
stated, ``It is in my professional opinion that Mr. Brown has
sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Brown reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 7 years, accumulating 72,800 miles. He holds an operator's
license from Kentucky. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert M. Cassell, Jr.

    Mr. Cassell, 46, has had central serous retinopathy in his left eye
since 2007. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his
left eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, Robert Cassell has sufficient vision
to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Cassell reported that he has driven straight trucks for
28 years, accumulating 700,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations
for 20 years, accumulating 600,000 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.

Henry L. Chrestensen, Sr.

    Mr. Chrestensen, 58, has enucleation in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2012. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination
in 2013, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my medical opinion as a board
certified ophthalmologist, I believe you have sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required in operating a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Chrestensen reported that he has driven straight trucks for 1 year,
accumulating 45,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 35
years, accumulating 3.68 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.

Charles D. Cohoon

    Mr. Cohoon, 67, has a macular scar in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident during birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/200, and in his left eye, 20/20. Mr. Cohoon reported that he has
driven buses for 4 years, accumulating 4,000 miles. He holds an
operator's license from Florida. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a
CMV.

Jack M. Conklin

    Mr. Conklin, 60, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/30 and in his left eye,
counting fingers. Following an examination in 2013, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``In my opinion, Mr. Conklin has sufficient vision to continue
performing the driving of a commercial vehicle, which he has done for
decades.'' Mr. Conklin reported that he has driven straight trucks for
40 years, accumulating 800,000 miles. He holds an operator's license
from Nebraska. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Michael E. Cummins

    Mr. Cummins, 66, has a macular scar in his left eye due to a
traumatic incident at birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, 20/100. Following an examination in 2014, his
optometrist stated, ``In my opinion, Michael Cummins has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Cummins reported that he has driven straight trucks for
50 years, accumulating 600,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations
for 35 years, accumulating 1.75 million miles. He holds an operator's
license from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Dave J. Eckert

    Mr. Eckert, 44, has had amblyopia in his left eye since birth. The
visual acuity

in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye, 20/70. Following an
examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion
Dave Eckert has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Eckert reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 11 years, accumulating 22,000 miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 11 years, accumulating 451,000 miles.
He holds a Class AM1 CDL from California. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Sanford L. Goodwin

    Mr. Goodwin, 51, has had central suppression consistent with
amblyopia in his right eye since childhood. The visual acuity in his
right eye is 20/300, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``Patient visual
deficiency is stable and I feel that Mr. Goodwin has sufficient vision
to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Goodwin reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 6 years, accumulating 75,000 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.

Tonia L. Graves

    Ms. Graves, 38, has had strabismic amblyopia in her left eye since
birth. The visual acuity in her right eye is 20/20, and in her left
eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2014, her optometrist stated,
``It is my professional opinion that Ms. Graves is capable of
performing all driving tasks and is safe to operate a commercial
vehicle. Although I did recommend a pair of distance glasses for Ms.
Graves, the prescription is not high enough to warrant it being a
requirement for her driving.'' Ms. Graves reported that she has driven
buses for 6.5 years, accumulating 71,500 miles. She holds an operator's
license from Arizona. Her driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Gregory S. Hatten

    Mr. Hatten, 57, has had a macular scar due to a bacterial infection
in his right eye since childhood. 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, ``I certify that Mr. Greg Hatten has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Hatten reported that he has driven straight trucks for
36 years, accumulating 720,000 miles. He holds an operator's license
from Louisiana. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jason P. Jones

    Mr. Jones, 44, has had vision loss due to end stage maculopathy
from toxoplasmosis in his right eye since childhood. 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, ``I do certify that, in my
medical opinion, Mr. Jones does have sufficient vision to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Jones
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating
110,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Indiana. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows one crash, for which he was not
cited, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jason R. King

    Mr. King, 34, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since
1998. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye,
20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``In
my medical opinion, based on his testing and 13 years without incident,
I believe Mr. King has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. King reported that he
has driven straight trucks for 12 years, accumulating 6,000 miles. He
holds an operator's license from Missouri. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Theodore J. Laycock

    Mr. Laycock, 68, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a traumatic incident in 1972. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination
in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my medical opinion, patient
has been monocular since 1972. Has excellent vision OD with normal
field and is able to preform [sic] the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Laycock reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 51 years, accumulating 1.28 million miles, and
tractor-trailer combinations for 11 years, accumulating 132,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from Massachusetts. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Thomas J. Long III

    Mr. Long, 45, 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/
150. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated,
``Lifelong deficiency of vision in the left eye. There is no evidence
of progression . . . He seems to be able to operate a commercial
vehicle in state for many years and has had the ability to do the same
task interstate in the past, before he allowed his waiver to lapse.
Thus in my opinion there is no change that would have reduced or
eliminate [sic] that ability which he has shown evidence of having in
the past.'' Mr. Long reported that he has driven straight trucks for 27
years, accumulating 1.62 million miles. He holds a Class B CDL from
Maryland. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
two convictions for moving violations in a CMV; in one instance he
exceeded the speed limit by 18 mph; in another instance, he was using a
hand-held telephone while operating a moving vehicle.

Marcus E. Manson

    Mr. Manson, 35, has had amblyopia in his left eye since childhood.
The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/30, and in his left eye, 20/
200. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In
my opinion, patient's vision of 30/30 [sic] in the right eye and 20/200
in the left eye is stable and should be sufficient vision to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Manson reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 6 years, accumulating 9,000 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.

Thomas J. McClure

    Mr. McClure, 61, has had central retinal artery occlusion in his
right eye since 1998. 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, ``In my opinion, Tom has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. McClure reported that he has driven straight trucks for
33 years, accumulating 412,500 miles. He holds an operator's license
from Iowa. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Steven W. Miller

    Mr. Miller, 61, has had amblyopia and exotropia in his left eye
since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist
stated, ``I, Michael G. Bonner, OD certify that Steve Miller has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Miller reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 12 years, accumulating 600,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 10 years, accumulating 10,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Aaron F. Naylor

    Mr. Naylor, 31, has enucleation in his left eye due to a traumatic
incident in 2010. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in
his left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2014,
his ophthalmologist stated, ``Mr. Naylor may resume his commercial
driving duties. He has no visual restriction.'' Mr. Naylor reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 45,000
miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 5 years, accumulating 625,000
miles, and buses for 1 year, accumulating 4,000 miles. He holds a Class
AM CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Billy R. O'Guynn

    Mr. O'Guynn, 48, has complete loss of vision in his left eye due to
a traumatic incident during birth. The visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/20, and in his left eye, no light perception. Following an
examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``Based on my
examination, I consider that Mr. O'Guynn has sufficient vision and
visual function to perform the tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle without restriction.'' Mr. O'Guynn reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 210,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 2.06 million miles. He
holds a Class AMV CDL from Alabama. His driving record for the last 3
years shows one crash, for which he was not cited, and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Walter B. Peltier

    Mr. Peltier, 67, has had strabismic amblyopia in his left eye since
birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/30, and in his left
eye, 20/60. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``In my medical opinion Walter Peltier has sufficient vision to perform
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Peltier
reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 38 years,
accumulating 2.01 million 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.

Gregory S. Rasnic

    Mr. Rasnic, 43, has had a prosthetic right eye since childhood. The
visual acuity in his right eye is no light perception, and in his left
eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``In my medical opinion, he does have sufficient vision in his
left eye according to current guidelines to perform the driving tasks
required to operate a commercial vehicle for Interstate Commerce
[sic].'' Mr. Rasnic reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3
years, accumulating 57,600 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jimmy D. Renfroe

    Mr. Renfroe, 27, has a cataract in his right eye due to a traumatic
incident during childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is light
perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in
2014, his optometrist stated, ``. . . in my medical opinion, Mr.
Renfroe has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Renfroe reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 3 years, accumulating 121,800 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 90,000 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.

Sabahudin Sabic

    Mr. Sabic, 46, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
incident in 1993. 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, ``I believe Mr. Sabic knows his own limitations
of both field of vision and depth perception, therefore yes he should
be granted a license to drive a semi.'' Mr. Sabic reported that he has
driven tractor-trailer combinations for 7 years, accumulating 140,000
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.

Klifford N. Siemens

    Mr. Siemens, 53, 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/
60. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``I see
no reason why Mr. Siemens wouldn't be able to operate a commercial
vehicle on the roadways as far as his eyes are concerned.'' Mr. Siemens
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years, accumulating
20,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 11 years,
accumulating 440,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Kansas. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Aaron H. Walser

    Mr. Walser, 45, has a retinal detachment in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1990. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
350, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his
optometrist stated, ``Mr. Walser has had this visual defect for so long
that he has adapted very well to it and I do not believe that it will
impair his ability to operate a commercial vehicle, as he has been
operating one for 30 years or so.'' Mr. Walser reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating 1.25 million miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 25 years, accumulating 1.25
million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Idaho. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

John A. Workman

    Mr. Workman, 44, has had strabismic amblyopia in his right eye
since birth. 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, ``It is my impression that John Workman has sufficient vision
to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Workman reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2.5 years,
accumulating 120,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

III. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice, indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means.
FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an
email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the
Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
put the docket number FMCSA-2014-0296 in the ``Keyword'' box, and click
``Search. When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment Now!'' button
and type your comment into the text box in the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit. . If you submit your comments by mail
or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the
facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this notice based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number FMCSA-2014-0296 in the ``Keyword'' box and
click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued on: September 18, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-23238 Filed 9-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Colorado 2005

Competency Standards

EPA Category

Applicator

Recertified

New Applicators

Valid Applicators

Agricultural--Plant (1i)

Commercial

535

137

1633

Private

0

0

0

Agricultural--Animal (1ii)

Commercial

0

2

5

Private

0

0

0

Forest (2)

Commercial

39

22

134

Private

0

0

0

Ornamental and Turf (3)

Commercial

646

223

2191

Private

0

0

0

Seed Treatment (4)

Commercial

3

3

17

Private

0

0

0

Aquatic (5)

Commercial

46

19

236

Private

0

0

0

Right-of-Way (6)

Commercial

274

115

1029

Private

0

0

0

Indust, Instit, Struct and Health Related (7)

Commercial

375

150

1264

Private

0

0

0

Public Health (8)

Commercial

50

21

175

Private

0

0

0

Regulatory (9)

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0

Demonstration and Research (10)

Commercial

28

4

80

Private

0

0

0

NON-COMPARABLE

Commercial

170

59

565

Private

0

0

0

Private Applicator

Commercial

0

0

0

Private

0

0

0