[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 168 (Friday, August 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51643-51648]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20625]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0010]

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 35 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 September 29, 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-2014-0010 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. If you have questions
on 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 35 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

Ronald A. Bolyard

    Mr. Bolyard, 55, has a macular scar 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, 20/100. Following an examination in
2014, his optometrist stated, ``In my opinion Ronald has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Bolyard reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 23 years, accumulating 2.76 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from West Virginia. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jackson C. Braithwaite

    Mr. Braithwaite, 55, has complete loss of vision in his left eye
due to a traumatic incident in 2004. The visual acuity in his right eye
is 20/20, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an
examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``This letter certifies
that Jackson Braithwaite, in my medical opinion, has sufficient vision
to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Braithwaite reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 12 years, accumulating 210,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 25 years, accumulating 1.125 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Ohio. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he exceeded
the speed limit by 4 mph.

Howard T. Bubel

    Mr. Bubel, 68, has had a retinal detachment causing macular
degeneration in his left eye since 2011. 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, ``As my last letter stated, in my
professional opinion, Howard should be granted an exemption from the
visual standard (the state has already done this). He should be allowed
to haul his own livestock.'' Mr. Bubel reported that he has driven
tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 45,000 miles.
He holds a Class A CDL from North Dakota. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

Raymond E. Burrus

    Mr. Burrus, 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, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``It is my opinion that Ray meets all the visual requirements to
operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Burrus reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 300,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 16 years, accumulating 320,000 miles. He holds
a Class A CDL from Colorado. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Dionicio Carrera

    Mr. Carrera, 40, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since
birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/80. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``I certify that, in my medical opinion, this patient has sufficient
vision to operate a commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Carrera reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 22 years, accumulating 176,000
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 15 years, accumulating 1.44
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.

Lee A. Clason

    Mr. Clason, 47, has had amblyopia and a chorioretinal scar 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, ``However, right eye continues to do well and Lee's
vision, including peripheral vision, is acceptable for his driver's
license,

including commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Clason reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 400,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 30 years, accumulating 1.8 million miles. He
holds a Class A CDL from Nebraska. His driving record for the last 3
years shows one crash, to which he did not contribute and was not
cited, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Jeff W. Claussen

    Mr. Claussen, 41, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye
since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/15, and in his
left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist
stated, ``. . . I believe that Mr. Claussen has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Claussen reported that he has driven buses for 15 years,
accumulating 168,750 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.

David A. Coburn, Sr.

    Mr. Coburn, 57, has a prosthetic left eye 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, no light perception. Following an examination
in 2013, his optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion, Mr. Coburn
has sufficient vision to operate a commercial vehicle with the proper
use of prescription spectacles.'' Mr. Coburn reported that he has
driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 150,000 miles, and
buses for 8 years, accumulating 80,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL
from Vermont. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Edward Cunningham

    Mr. Cunningham, 57, has a corneal scar 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, 20/25. Following an
examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``The patient has had his
CDL for several years. He has been able to maintain his CDL and seems
to have no apparent problems driving due to his vision. I think he
should be able to maintain his current driving status.'' Mr. Cunningham
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 36 years, accumulating
630,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 8 years,
accumulating 800,000 miles. He holds a Class CA CDL from Michigan. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Eric P. Demers

    Mr. Demers, 37, 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, ``I have
no reason to believe Mr. Demers' vision is anything other than
sufficient to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Demers reported that
he has driven straight trucks for 15 years, accumulating 720,000 miles,
and tractor-trailer combinations for 3 years, accumulating 450,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Martin H. Duncan

    Mr. Duncan, 47, 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 ophthalmologist stated, ``Mr.
Duncan has a normal eye examination. His amblyopia has been present
since childhood, and will not affect his ability to perform the driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Duncan reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 3.5 years, accumulating 91,000
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 9.5 years, accumulating
247,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Washington. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Ronald D. Holshouser

    Mr. Holshouser, 54, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye
since 2012. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/16, and in his
left eye, hand motion. Following an examination in 2014, his
ophthalmologist stated, ``I certify that, in my medical opinion, the
applicant's visual deficiency is stable and has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial motor
vehicle, and that the applicant's condition will not adversely affect
his/her ability to operate a commercial motor vehicle safely.'' Mr.
Holshouser reported that he has driven straight trucks for 34 years,
accumulating 884,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from Missouri. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Oscar Juarez

    Mr. Juarez, 38, has macular scars of the retina in his left eye due
to a traumatic incident in 1998. The visual acuity in his right eye is
20/20, and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination
in 2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my opinion, given that his
visual acuity has been stable for many years, his vision is sufficient
to perform the driving tasks that are required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Juarez reported that he has driven straight trucks for
19 years, accumulating 19,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations
for 18 years, accumulating 9,000 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.

Kelly R. Knopf, Sr.

    Mr. Knopf, 51, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye
since 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
optometrist stated, ``In my opinion, he has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Knopf reported that he has driven straight trucks for 24 years,
accumulating 249,600 miles. He holds an operator's license from South
Carolina. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Edward J. Kosior

    Mr. Kosior, 69, has had strabismic amblyopia in his right eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2014, his ophthalmologist
stated, ``It is in my medical opinion, [sic] that Edward Kosior has
sufficient vision to perform the driving task required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Kosior reported that he has driven buses for
30 years, accumulating 540,000 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from New
York. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Todd A. Krough

    Mr. Krough, 49, has a prosthetic left eye due to a traumatic
incident in 1983. 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, ``His right eye has no problems at all but it
is within your discretion whether monocular vision is sufficient for
operating a commercial vehicle. He has

been doing so for 30 years with his current condition so seems capable
of doing so adequately.'' Mr. Krough reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating 20,000 miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 20 years, accumulating 100,000 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.

Lester E. Lathrop III

    Mr. Lathrop, 51, has had myopic astigmatism and amblyopia in his
left eye since childhood. 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, Les has sufficient vision
to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial.'' Mr.
Lathrop reported that he has driven straight trucks for 24 years,
accumulating 240,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 14
years, accumulating 140,000 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.

Mathew A. Lind

    Mr. Lind, 24, has retinal sclopeteria 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, 20/200. Following an examination in
2014, his ophthalmologist stated, ``I last examined Mathew Lind on May
8, 2014. He has been a patient at our practice since 2003 when he
presented after getting shot with a paintball gun in his left eye
resulting in retinal sclopeteria . . . I feel that he is fully capable
of safely operating a commercial vehicle and performing all driving
tasks.'' Mr. Lind reported that he has driven straight trucks for 3
years, accumulating 900 miles. He holds an operator's license from
Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Frazier A. Luckerson

    Mr. Luckerson, 57, 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 optometrist stated, ``Mr. Luckerson has
full use of his left eye and his vision is sufficient to perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Luckerson
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 25 years, accumulating
750,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Georgia. His driving
record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for
moving violations in a CMV.

Carl M. Lude

    Mr. Lude, 57, has had macular degeneration in his left eye since
2003. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/40, and in his left eye,
20/200. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``Based on his visual fields and his visual acuity in the right eye,
Carl has sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle if binocularity is not a critical factor.'' Mr.
Lude reported that he has driven straight trucks for 7 years,
accumulating 1,050 miles. He holds a Class C CDL from Maine. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Ross A. Miceli II

    Mr. Miceli, 38, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/50. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``In my medical opinion, Ross does have sufficient vision to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Miceli reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 15 years, accumulating 1.5 million miles, and tractor-
trailer combinations for 4 years, accumulating 140,000 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.

Timothy L. Miller

    Mr. Miller, 36, has had refractive amblyopia in his left eye since
birth. 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,
``In my medical opinion Mr. 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 2.5 years, accumulating
105,000 miles, tractor-trailer combinations for 1.5 years, accumulating
142,500 miles, and buses for 9 years, accumulating 22,500 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.

Donald L. Minney

    Mr. Minney, 49, has had esotropia with secondary amblyopia in his
right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and
in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2014, his
optometrist stated, ``Even though he has reduced acuity in the right
eye and bilateral color vision deficiency, it is my professional
opinion that Mr. Minney is able to safely continue operating with a
commercial vehicle license.'' Mr. Minney reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 30 years, accumulating 750,000 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.

Phillip L. Neff

    Mr. Neff, 57, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 1975. 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 medical opinion, Mr. Neff has
sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Neff reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 39 years, accumulating 136,500 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 39 years, accumulating 136,500 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.

Brian S. Nelson

    Mr. Nelson, 56, 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 ophthalmologist stated, ``He
has a history of amblyopia in the left eye and left esotropia. In my
opinion, he can safely perform the driving tasks needed to operate a
commercial motor vehicle.'' Mr. Nelson reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 25,000 miles. He holds a
Class B CDL from Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Peter D. Rosenkranse III

    Mr. Rosenkranse, 55, has had exotropia, a cataract, and a retinal
scar 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 in my medical opinion, Mr
Rosenkranse has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Rosenkranse reported that he has
driven tractor-trailer combinations for 35 years,

accumulating 147,700 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from New York. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Antonio Sanchez

    Mr. Sanchez, 57, 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, ``Mr. Sanchez's examination proves that
he is visually efficient [sic] to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr.
Sanchez reported that he has driven tractor-trailer combinations for 20
years, accumulating 40,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New
Jersey. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Lawrence P. Siegler

    Mr. Siegler, 58, 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/
50. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated, ``I
certify that Lawrence Siegler in my opinion can safely perform the
driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle based on the
above information as well as what was found during his eye exam.'' Mr.
Siegler reported that he has driven straight trucks for 20 years,
accumulating 30,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 40
years, accumulating 2.16 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Minnesota. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he exceeded the speed
limit by 10 mph.

Rick J. Smart

    Mr. Smart, 56, has had amblyopia 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, ``I don't
think his vision deficiency in his right eye interferes with his
ability to safely operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Smart reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 6 years, accumulating 120,000
miles. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire. His driving record
for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Clifford W. Smith

    Mr. Smith, 62, has had complete loss of vision in his left eye
since 1971. 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, ``I certify that in my medical opinion, Mr. Smith
has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate
a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Smith reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 39 years, accumulating 585,000 miles, and buses for 1 year,
accumulating 1,000 miles. He holds an operator's license from Oregon.
His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no
convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Robert L. Strange

    Mr. Strange, 45, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, counting fingers. Mr. Strange appeared for a DOT visual evaluation
on December 3, 2013. His ophthalmologist stated that Mr. Strange's
visual impairment does not compromise his ability to operate a motor
vehicle safely. Mr. Strange reported that he has driven straight trucks
for 8 years, accumulating 192,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 14 years, accumulating 336,000 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.

David L. Von Hagen

    Mr. Von Hagen, 70, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/70. Following an examination in 2014, his optometrist stated,
``In my medical opinion, David Von Hagen has sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Von Hagen reported that he has driven straight trucks for 38 years,
accumulating 2.66 million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
34 years, accumulating 2.38 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.

Donald Wallace

    Mr. Wallace, 57, has a corneal scar, aphakia, and secondary to
exotropia in his right eye due to a trauma 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, ``At this
time, I feel Mr. Wallace is visually capable of maintaining his current
CDL license that he has held for the last 12 years.'' Mr. Wallace
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years, accumulating
80,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10 years,
accumulating 80,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Illinois. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Loran J. Weiler

    Mr. Weiler, 56, has had a retinal detachment in his 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, ``With Loran's overall visual acuity of 20/20,
visual fields of greater than 120 degrees and color vision being
normal, I do consider him to have sufficient vision to perform driving
tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Weiler reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 36 years, accumulating 180,000
miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 36 years, accumulating
180,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Iowa. His driving record for
the last 3 years shows one crash, to which he did not contribute and
was not cited, and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Frederick J. Zuech

    Mr. Zuech, 60, has a prosthetic right eye due to a traumatic
incident in 1979. 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, ``Pt's OS has full visual field to 120
degrees. PT also has full color vision in the OS based on Ishihara
testing. Pt's OS is healthy with no pathology noted. Based on all
measurements, I do feel he is safe to continue to perform the driving
tasks necessary to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Zuech reported
that he has driven straight trucks for 42 years, accumulating 1.05
million miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 40 years,
accumulating 200,000 miles. He holds a Class AM CDL from New York. 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-2014-0010 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-2014-0010 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.

    Dated: August 21, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-20625 Filed 8-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27686-27688]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 31197; Amdt. No. 3803]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain
airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption
of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the
National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective June 14, 2018. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:

For Examination

    1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the
affected airport is located;
    3. The office of Aeronautical Navigation Products, 6500 South
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

Availability

    All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free
of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at nfdc.faa.gov to
register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP
copies may be obtained from the FAA Air Traffic Organization Service
Area in which the affected airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Divisions,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City,
OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, part 97 (14 CFR part 97), by establishing,
amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated
Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form
documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5
U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA
forms are FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, and 8260-15B when
required by an entry on 8260-15A.
    The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex
nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use
the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead
refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of
aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by
reference are realized and publication of the complete description of
each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs

with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies
the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

Availability and Summary of Material Incorporated by Reference

    The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section.
    The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
Minimums and/or ODPS as identified in the amendatory language for part
97 of this final rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as Amended in the
transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments
may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center
(FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate
flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
    The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less
than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an
effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
    Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and
Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the
conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of
the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff
Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and
public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary
to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C 553(d),
good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979) ;
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2018.
John S. Duncan,
Executive Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by
establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure
Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114,
40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Effective 19 July 2018

Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, ILS RWY 15, Amdt 6E
Anchorage, AK, Ted Stevens Anchorage Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 7R,
Orig-D
Buckland, AK, Buckland, NDB/DME RWY 11, Amdt 1, CANCELED
Buckland, AK, Buckland, NDB/DME RWY 29, Amdt 1, CANCELED
Buckland, AK, Buckland, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 2
Buckland, AK, Buckland, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1
Buckland, AK, Buckland, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 2
Ketchikan, AK, Ketchikan Intl, KETCHIKAN SIX, Graphic DP
Ketchikan, AK, Ketchikan Intl, SKOWL TWO, Graphic DP
Ketchikan, AK, Ketchikan Intl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 9
Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, ILS
OR LOC RWY 4L, Amdt 26A
Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, ILS
OR LOC RWY 4R, Amdt 2D
Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, ILS
OR LOC RWY 22L, Orig-D
Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 4L, Amdt 1D
Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 4R, Amdt 1D
Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 18, Amdt 1E
Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 22L, Amdt 1D
Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 22R, Amdt 1C
Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field, RNAV
(GPS) RWY 36, Orig-C
Little Rock, AR, Bill and Hillary Clinton National/Adams Field,
Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 9
Pago Pago, AS, Pago Pago Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 5, Amdt 14
Pago Pago, AS, Pago Pago Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Orig
Pago Pago, AS, Pago Pago Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Orig
Pago Pago, AS, Pago Pago Intl, VOR OR TACAN-B, Amdt 6
Show Low, AZ, Show Low Rgnl, NDB-A, Amdt 2
Show Low, AZ, Show Low Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 25, Amdt 3
Show Low, AZ, Show Low Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
2
San Carlos, CA, San Carlos, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt
1A
Visalia, CA, Visalia Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 30, Amdt 7B
Visalia, CA, Visalia Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1C
Visalia, CA, Visalia Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 30, Amdt 1B
Visalia, CA, Visalia Muni, VOR RWY 12, Amdt 6C
Eagle, CO, Eagle County Rgnl, LDA RWY 25, Amdt 1
Eagle, CO, Eagle County Rgnl, RNAV (GPS)-D, Amdt 1
Palm Coast, FL, Flagler Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 6, Amdt 2
Palm Coast, FL, Flagler Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 11, Amdt 2
Palm Coast, FL, Flagler Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 24, Amdt 1
Palm Coast, FL, Flagler Executive, RNAV (GPS) RWY 29, Amdt 1
Palm Coast, FL, Flagler Executive, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 2
West Palm Beach, FL, Palm Beach Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 10L, Amdt 3C
Kailua/Kona, HI, Ellison Onizuka Kona Intl at Keahole, RNAV (GPS)
RWY 35, Amdt 2
Kailua/Kona, HI, Ellison Onizuka Kona Intl at Keahole, RNAV (GPS) Y
RWY 35, Amdt 1B, CANCELED
Red Oak, IA, Red Oak Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 1B
Morris, IL, Morris Muni--James R Washburn Field, VOR-A, Orig-D
Covington, KY, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY
18C, ILS RWY 18C SA CAT I, ILS RWY 18C SA CAT II, Amdt 23
Covington, KY, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27,
ILS RWY 27 SA CAT I, ILS RWY 27 SA CAT II, Amdt 18
Benton Harbor, MI, Southwest Michigan Rgnl, ILS OR LOC RWY 28, Amdt
9

Benton Harbor, MI, Southwest Michigan Rgnl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 28, Amdt
2B
Detroit, MI, Coleman A Young Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 15, Amdt 11
Detroit, MI, Coleman A Young Muni, ILS OR LOC RWY 33, Amdt 15
Pontiac, MI, Oakland County Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 9R, Amdt 13
Pontiac, MI, Oakland County Intl, LOC BC RWY 27L, Amdt 2
Pontiac, MI, Oakland County Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9R, Orig-B
Pontiac, MI, Oakland County Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27L, Orig-A
Pontiac, MI, Oakland County Intl, VOR RWY 9R, Amdt 24, CANCELED
Pontiac, MI, Oakland County Intl, VOR RWY 27L, Amdt 15, CANCELED
Duluth, MN, Duluth Intl, COPTER ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 2B
Duluth, MN, Duluth Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 9, ILS RWY 9 (SA CAT I), ILS
RWY 9 (CAT II), Amdt 22B
Duluth, MN, Duluth Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 27, Amdt 10C
Duluth, MN, Duluth Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 3, Orig-B
Duluth, MN, Duluth Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 9, Amdt 1D
Duluth, MN, Duluth Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 21, Orig-B
Duluth, MN, Duluth Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 27, Orig-C
Minneapolis, MN, Airlake, RNAV (GPS) RWY 12, Amdt 1
Minneapolis, MN, Airlake, VOR RWY 12, Amdt 3
Missoula, MT, Missoula Intl, RNAV (RNP) RWY 30, Orig-C
Gastonia, NC, Gastonia Muni, NDB RWY 3, Amdt 9A
Nebraska City, NE, Nebraska City Muni, NDB RWY 15, Amdt 1A
Morristown, NJ, Morristown Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, Amdt 4
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, COPTER RNAV (GPS) 027, Orig-C
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4L, Amdt 11B
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 4R, ILS RWY 4R
(CAT II), ILS RWY 4R (CAT III), Amdt 30A
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 13L, ILS RWY 13L
(CAT II), Amdt 18A
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22L, ILS RWY 22L
(CAT II), ILS RWY 22L (CAT III), Amdt 24C
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 22R, Amdt 2B
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 31L, Amdt 11A
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, ILS OR LOC RWY 31R, Amdt 16A
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) RWY 22R, Amdt 1F
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 4L, Amdt 3A
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 4R, Amdt 2A
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 22L, Amdt 1E
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 31L, Amdt 2A
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 31R, Amdt 2B
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 4L, Amdt 2A
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 4R, Amdt 1A
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 22L, Amdt 1C
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 31L, Amdt 1A
New York, NY, John F Kennedy Intl, RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 31R, Amdt 1A
Saratoga Springs, NY, Saratoga County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 23, Amdt 2
Hillsboro, OH, Highland County, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP,
Amdt 4
Hollis, OK, Hollis Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig
Hollis, OK, Hollis Muni, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig
Hollis, OK, Hollis Muni, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Orig
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, ASTORIA THREE, Graphic DP
Astoria, OR, Astoria Rgnl, Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle DP, Amdt 7
Portland, OR, Portland-Hillsboro, ILS OR LOC RWY 13R, Amdt 10B
Kenedy, TX, Karnes County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 16, Orig-B
Mineola/Quitman, TX, Wood County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 18, Orig-B
Mineola/Quitman, TX, Wood County, RNAV (GPS) RWY 36, Orig-C
Port Isabel, TX, Port Isabel-Cameron County, Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle DP, Amdt 2B
Rice Lake, WI, Rice Lake Rgnl--Carl's Field, RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, Amdt
3
Afton, WY, Afton Muni, AFTON FOUR, Graphic DP

    Rescinded: On May 23, 2018 (83 FR 23802), the FAA published an
Amendment in Docket No. 31193, Amdt No. 3799, to Part 97 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations under section 97.23. The following
entry for Wellsville, NY, effective July 19, 2018, is hereby
rescinded in its entirety:

Wellsville, NY, Wellsville Muni Arpt, Tarantine Fld, VOR-A, Amdt 6,
CANCELED

[FR Doc. 2018-12713 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10854-10860]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05468]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85346; File No. SR-EMERALD-2019-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders

March 18, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 6, 2019, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 Exchange Rule 518,
Complex

Orders, in order to implement identical functionality currently
operative on one of the Exchange's affiliates, Miami International
Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/emerald at MIAX
Emerald'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 proposes to amend Exchange Rule 518, Complex Orders,
to implement functionality, as described below, that is identical to
functionality currently operative on MIAX Options.\3\ MIAX Emerald
commenced operations as a national securities exchange registered under
Section 6 of the Act \4\ on March 1, 2019. As described more fully in
MIAX Emerald's Form 1 application,\5\ the Exchange is an affiliate of
Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX Options'') and
MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL''). MIAX Emerald Rules, in their current
form, were filed as Exhibit B to its Form 1 on August 16, 2018. At that
time MIAX Emerald Rule 518 and MIAX Options Rule 518 were substantially
similar. MIAX Options recently amended its Rule 518 \6\ and in order to
ensure consistent operation of both MIAX Emerald and MIAX Options
through having consistent rules, the Exchange now proposes to amend
MIAX Emerald Exchange Rule 518 as described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See MIAX Options Exchange Rule 518.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84891 (December 20,
2018), 83 FR 67421 (December 28, 2018) (File No. 10-233) (order
approving application of MIAX Emerald, LLC for registration as a
national securities exchange).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85155 (February 15,
2019), 84 FR 5739 (February 22, 2019) (SR-MIAX-2018-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 518,
Complex Orders, to (i) amend the Response Time Interval and Defined
Time Period for Complex Auctions (each defined below); (ii) amend
Interpretation and Policy .05(f), to add additional detail pertaining
to the operation of the Complex MIAX [sic] Price Collar (``MPC''),
specifically to adopt new rule text for the use of a Temporary MIAX
Price Collar (``TMPC'') during a cPRIME Auction or Complex Auction \7\
in the limited instance when an MPC has not been assigned; (iii) adopt
a new Complex Liquidity Exposure Process (``cLEP''); (iv) make minor
changes to the Complex MIAX [sic] Options Price Collar Protection; and
(v) clarify that the Calendar Spread Variance (``CSV'') price
protection applies only to strategies in American-style option \8\
classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Rule 518(d).
    \8\ The term ``American-style option'' means an option contract
that, subject to the provisions of Rule 700 (relating to the cutoff
time for exercise instructions) and to the Rules of the Clearing
Corporation, can be exercised on any business day prior to its
expiration date and on its expiration date. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend subsection (d)(3) which describes
the Response Time Interval of a Complex Auction, which is a single-
sided auction. The Exchange offers Complex Auction functionality as
described in Exchange Rule 518 \9\ and also a cPRIME process for paired
orders, which is unaffected by this proposal, as described in Exchange
Rule 515A.12. The Exchange is not proposing to change the cPRIME
process, and thus the cPRIME Timer will remain at 100 milliseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Certain option classes, as determined by the Exchange and
communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular, will be eligible to
participate in a Complex Auction (an ``eligible class''). Upon
evaluation as set forth in subparagraph (c)(5) of Rule 518, the
Exchange may determine to automatically submit a Complex Auction-
eligible order into a Complex Auction. Upon entry into the System or
upon evaluation of a complex order resting at the top of the
Strategy Book, Complex Auction-eligible orders may be subject to an
automated request for responses (``RFR''). See Exchange Rule 518(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Rule 518(d)(3) provides that the Response Time Interval
means the period of time during which responses to the Request for
Responses (``RFR'') message may be entered. The Rule further provides
that the Exchange determines the duration of the Response Time
Interval, which shall not exceed 500 milliseconds, and communicates it
to Members via Regulatory Circular.\10\ The Exchange now proposes to
adopt new rule text to state that, ``the end of the trading session
will also serve as the end of the Response Time Interval for a Complex
Auction still in progress.'' In connection with this proposed change,
the Exchange proposes to amend subsection (d)(2) to remove the
reference to the Defined Time Period for a Complex Auction. The Defined
Time Period represents the period of time preceding the end of a
trading session during which a Complex Auction will not be initiated.
Currently, by Exchange rule the Defined Time Period shall be at least
100 milliseconds and may not exceed 10 seconds.\11\ The Exchange
anticipates it will launch operations with the duration of a Complex
Auction set to 200 milliseconds.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Exchange notes that the Response Time Interval is
currently set to 200 milliseconds.
    \11\ See Exchange Rule 518(d)(2).
    \12\ The MIAX Options Complex Auction duration is currently set
to 200 milliseconds. See MIAX Options Regulatory Circular 2016-46.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend subsection (c)(2)(i) to remove
the restriction that a cAOA Order \13\ received during the Defined Time
Period will not initiate a new Complex Auction. Under the current rules
there is no opportunity at all for price improvement via a Complex
Auction when there is less than two seconds left in the trading
session. The Exchange believes that removing the Defined Time Period
and allowing the end of the trading session to serve as the end of the
Response Time Interval in the limited instance that a Complex Auction
is initiated with less than 200 milliseconds left in the trading
session will allow for more opportunities for price improvement via the
auction process. In the event that a Member initiates a Complex Auction
and no Members respond, the initiating Member is no worse off under the
proposed rule than the Member would have been under the current rule
which prevents the Member from even attempting to initiate a Complex
Auction with less than two seconds left in the trading session.
Additionally, a Member who initiates a Complex Auction will not forego
the opportunity to trade with unrelated interest received during the
Auction period, as this interest is included in the Complex
Auction.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A ``Complex Auction-on-Arrival'' or ``cAOA'' Order is a
complex order designated to be placed into a Complex Auction upon
receipt or upon evaluation. See Exchange Rule 518(b)(2).
    \14\ See Exchange Rule 518(d)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange represents that it has the System \15\ capacity and
capability to conduct auctions and execute transactions in a timely
fashion at any

time during the trading session including the last two seconds.
Further, the Exchange represents that it has surveillances in place to
surveil for conduct that violates the Exchange's rules, specifically as
they pertain to Complex Auctions as described herein.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \16\ The Exchange notes that Rule 518.04, Dissemination of
Information, remains in effect for any Complex Auction-eligible
order submitted to the Exchange at any time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend Rule 518, Interpretation and
Policy .05, to add additional detail to the rule regarding the
establishment of the MIAX [sic] Price Collar (``MPC'') under various
circumstances to align MIAX Emerald rule text to that of MIAX
Options.\17\ The MPC is a price protection feature designed to help
maintain a fair and orderly market by helping to mitigate the potential
risk of executions at prices that are extreme and potentially
erroneous. The MPC prevents complex orders from automatically executing
at potentially erroneous prices by establishing a price range outside
of which a complex order will not be executed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84519 (November 1,
2018), 83 FR 55776 (November 7, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend Rule 518, Interpretation and
Policy .05, by removing current subsection (f)(3) and replacing it with
new proposed subsections (f)(3) and (f)(4) as described below. New
subsection (f)(3) will provide that, ``[t]he MPC Price is established:
(i) upon receipt of the complex order or eQuote during free trading, or
(ii) if the complex order or eQuote is not received during free
trading, at the opening (or reopening following a halt) of trading in
the complex strategy; or (iii) upon evaluation of the Strategy Book by
the System when a wide market condition, as described in Interpretation
and Policy .05(e)(1) of this Rule, no longer exists.'' \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Exchange notes that if wide market conditions exist
(any individual option component of a complex strategy has a
displayed EBBO quote width that is wider than the permissible simple
market quote width) when an order is received, an MPC will not be
calculated until the wide market conditions are resolved. See
Exchange Rule 518.05(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New subsection (f)(4) will provide that, ``[a] Temporary MPC Price
(`TMPC Price') is established solely for use during a Complex Auction
(as defined in Rule 518(d)) or a cPRIME Auction (as defined in Rule
515A, Interpretation and Policy .12) for (i) any complex order resting
on the Strategy Book that does not have an MPC assigned and is eligible
to participate in a Complex Auction or a cPRIME Auction in that
strategy; or (ii) any complex order or eQuote received during a cPRIME
Auction \19\ if a wide market condition existed in a component of the
strategy at the start of the cPRIME Auction. The TMPC Price shall be
the auction start price \20\ (the auction start price of a cPRIME
Agency Order for a cPRIME Auction is defined in Rule 515A.12(a)(i) and
the auction start price for a Complex Auction is defined in Rule
518(d)(1)) plus (minus) the MPC Setting \21\ if the order is a buy
(sell). If the complex order or eQuote eligible to participate in the
Complex Auction or cPRIME Auction is priced more aggressively than the
TMPC Price (i.e., the complex order or eQuote price is greater than the
TMPC Price for a buy order, or the complex order or eQuote price is
lower than the TMPC Price for a sell order) the complex order or eQuote
may participate in the auction but will not trade through its TMPC
Price.'' The minimum MPC Setting is $0.00 and the maximum MPC Setting
is $1.00, as determined by the Exchange and communicated to Members via
Regulatory Circular.\22\ A TMPC Price will be calculated for use during
the length of the auction for any complex order resting on the Strategy
Book that does not have an MPC assigned and is eligible to participate
in a Complex Auction or cPRIME Auction in that strategy, or any complex
order or eQuote received during a cPRIME Auction if a wide market
condition existed in a component of the strategy at the start of the
cPRIME Auction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange notes that if a wide market condition exists
for a component of a complex strategy, trading in the strategy will
be suspended, except as otherwise set forth in Exchange Rule
518.05(e)(1)(iii), which states that a wide market condition shall
have no impact on the trading of cPRIME Orders and processing of
cPRIME Auctions (including the processing of cPRIME Auction
responses) pursuant to Rule 515A, Interpretation and Policy .12. See
Exchange Rule 518.05(e)(1)(i).
    \20\ The auction start price for a cPRIME Auction is the
initiating price of a cPRIME Agency Order as described in Exchange
Rule 515A.12(a)(i). The auction start price for a Complex Auction is
the initiating order's limit price as described in Exchange Rule
518(d)(1).
    \21\ See Exchange Rule 518.05(f).
    \22\ See Exchange Rule 518.05(f)(2). The Exchange anticipates
that the setting for the launch of trading on MIAX Emerald will be
$.25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An example of the TMPC Price being established and used is provided
below.

Example 3--A TMPC Price is established for an order or eQuote received
during a cPRIME Auction
    MIAX Emerald--LMM Mar 50 Call 1.00-6.50 (10x10) (Wide Market)
    MIAX Emerald--LMM Mar 55 Call 2.90-3.30 (10x10)
    ABBO--Mar 50 Call 6.00-6.30 (10x10)
    ABBO--Mar 55 Call 3.00-3.30 (10x10)
    NBBO--Mar 50 Call 6.00-6.30 (10x10)
    NBBO--Mar 55 Call 3.00-3.30 (10x20)
Strategy: Buy 1 Mar 50 Call, Sell 1 Mar 55 Call
The cNBBO is 2.70 debit bid and 3.30 credit offer

    The MPC Setting is $.25.
    The Exchange receives a cPRIME Order with the cPRIME Agency Order
representing the purchase of the Strategy at a net debit of 3.00, 500
times. Auto-match is not enabled and there are no orders for the
Strategy on the Strategy Book.
    A TMPC Price will be calculated for use during the length of the
auction for any complex order or eQuote received during a cPRIME
Auction if a wide market condition existed in a component of the
strategy at the start of the cPRIME Auction. The TMPC Price will be the
cPRIME auction start price +/- the MPC Setting. In this example the
auction start price is $3.00. The TMPC Price is $2.75 ($3.00-$.25) for
sell orders, and $3.25 ($3.00 + $.25) for buy orders.
    An RFR is broadcast to all subscribers and the RFR period is
started.
    The following responses are received:

 @20 milliseconds BD1 response, cAOC Order @2.95 credit sell of
200 arrives
 @30 milliseconds MM1 response, cAOC eQuote @2.90 credit sell
of 200 arrives
 @50 milliseconds C1 response, cAOC Order @2.70 credit sell of
100 arrives

    The cPRIME Auction process will continue until the Response Time
Interval ends. When the 100 millisecond Response Time Interval ends,
the cPRIME Auction process will trade the Agency Order with the best
priced responses. The Agency Order will be filled as follows:

 The cPRIME Agency Order buys 100 from C1 @2.75
 The cPRIME Agency Order buys 200 from MM1 @2.90
 The cPRIME Agency Order buys 200 from BD1 @2.95

    Note that C1 is prevented from selling at 2.70 by the cPRIME
Auction TMPC Price limit of 2.75.
    The Exchange believes that amending the rule to [sic] regarding the
use of a TMPC Price, which is applicable only in the limited
circumstance when an MPC has not been assigned, and exists only for the
duration of a Complex Auction or cPRIME Auction, adds additional detail
to the Exchange's rules and provides greater transparency of Exchange
functionality. The use of a TMPC Price provides protection for orders
that participate in either a

Complex Auction or a cPRIME Auction when the order does not have an
assigned MPC Price as described above. This price protection ensures
that orders are not executed at potentially erroneous prices during the
auction. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes promote the
protection of investors and the public interest by providing greater
clarity and specificity of Exchange functionality, and it is in the
public interest for the Exchange's rules to be accurate and concise so
as to minimize the potential for confusion.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend current subsection (f)(4)
(proposed subsection (f)(5)) which states that, ``Any unexecuted
portion of such a complex order or eQuote: (A) Will be cancelled if it
would otherwise be displayed or executed at a price that is outside the
MPC Price, and (B) may be subject to the managed interest process
described in Rule 518(c)(4).'' The Exchange proposes to amend this
sentence to account for a proposed Complex Liquidity Exposure Process
(``cLEP'') as described below. The proposed amended sentence will
provide, ``Any unexecuted portion of such a complex order or eQuote:
(A) will be subject to the cLEP as described in subsection (e) of this
Rule, and (B) may be subject to the managed interest process described
in Rule 518(c)(4).''
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt new subsection (e) to Rule 518
to describe a Complex Liquidity Exposure Process (``cLEP'') for complex
orders and complex eQuotes that would violate their Complex MIAX [sic]
Price Collar (``MPC'') price. The MPC price protection feature is an
Exchange-wide mechanism under which a complex order or complex eQuote
to sell will not be displayed or executed at a price that is lower than
the opposite side cNBBO \23\ bid at the time the MPC is assigned by the
System (i.e., upon receipt or upon opening) by more than a specific
dollar amount expressed in $0.01 increments (the ``MPC Setting''), and
under which a complex order or eQuote to buy will not be displayed or
executed at a price that is higher than the opposite side cNBBO offer
at the time the MPC is assigned by the System by more than the MPC
Setting (each the ``MPC Price'').\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The term cNBBO means the Complex National Best Bid or Offer
and is calculated using the National Best Bid or Offer (``NBBO'')
for each component of a complex strategy to establish the best net
bid and offer for a complex strategy. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(2).
    \24\ See Exchange Rule 518.05(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to initiate a Complex Liquidity Exposure
Auction (``cLEP Auction'') whenever a complex order or complex eQuote
would execute or post at a price that would violate its MPC Price. To
begin the cLEP Auction, the System will first broadcast a liquidity
exposure message to all subscribers of the Exchange's data feeds. The
liquidity exposure message will include the symbol, side of the market,
auction start price (MPC Price of the complex order or eQuote), and the
imbalance quantity. The purpose of including the imbalance quantity in
the RFR message is to inform such participants of the number of
contracts that are available for execution.
    The System will initiate a Response Time Interval, as determined by
the Exchange and communicated via Regulatory Circular which shall be no
less than 100 milliseconds and no more than 5,000 milliseconds.\25\ At
the conclusion of the Complex Liquidity Exposure Auction the resulting
trade price will be determined by the Exchange's Complex Auction
Pricing described in subsection (d)(6) of this Rule and interest will
be executed as provided in subsection (d)(6) of this Rule. In no event
will the resulting trade price of a cLEP Auction ever be more
aggressive than the MPC Price. Remaining liquidity with an original
limit price that is (i) less aggressive (lower for a buy order or
eQuote, or higher for a sell order or eQuote) than or equal to the MPC
Price will be handled in accordance with subsection (c)(2)(ii)-(v) of
this Rule, or (ii) more aggressive than the MPC Price will be subject
to the Reevaluation process as described below. Orders and quotes
executed in a cLEP Auction will be allocated in accordance with the
Complex Auction allocation procedures described in Exchange Rule
518(d)(7)(i)-(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The Exchange notes that the current duration of a cPRIME
Auction is 100 milliseconds and the current duration of a Complex
Auction is 200 milliseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the conclusion of a cLEP Auction the System will calculate the
next potential MPC Price for remaining liquidity with an original limit
price more aggressive than the existing MPC Price. The next MPC Price
will be calculated as the MPC Price plus (minus) the next MPC increment
for buy (sell) orders (the ``New MPC Price''). The System will initiate
a cLEP Auction for liquidity that would execute or post at a price that
would violate its New MPC Price. Liquidity with an original limit price
less aggressive (lower for a buy order or eQuote, or higher for a sell
order or eQuote) than or equal to the New MPC Price will be posted to
the Strategy Book at its original limit price or handled in accordance
with subsection (c)(2)(ii)-(v) of Rule 518. The cLEP process will
continue until no liquidity remains with an original limit price that
is more aggressive than its MPC Price. At the conclusion of the cLEP
process, any liquidity that has not been executed will be posted to the
Strategy Book at its original limit price.
    The current rule provides that if the MPC Price is priced less
aggressively than the limit price of the complex order or eQuote (i.e.,
the MPC Price is less than the complex order or eQuote's bid price for
a buy, or the MPC Price is greater than the complex order or eQuote's
offer price for a sell), or if the complex order is a market order, the
complex order or eQuote will be displayed and/or executed up to its MPC
Price. Any unexecuted portion of such a complex order or eQuote: (A)
will be cancelled if it would otherwise be displayed or executed at a
price that is outside the MPC Price, and (B) may be subject to the
managed interest process described in 518(c)(4).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Exchange Rule 518.05(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to amend subsection(f)(6)(A) to provide
that any unexecuted portion of such a complex order or eQuote will be
subject to the cLEP as described in proposed subsection (e). The
Exchange believes it to be in the best interest of the Member \27\ to
seek liquidity via the Complex Liquidity Exposure Process as described
above, rather than cancel any unexecuted portion of the order. The
Exchange represents that it has the System capability and capacity to
handle the potential cLEP Auctions that may occur under the Exchange's
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The examples below demonstrate an order subject to the Complex
Liquidity Exposure Process.
Example 1
MPC: $0.25

    The Exchange has one order resting on its Strategy Book: \28\ +1
component A, - 1 component B:

    \28\ The term ``Strategy Book'' is the Exchange's electronic
book of complex orders and complex quotes. See Exchange Rule
518(a)(17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order 1 is to sell 10 at $1.90
    EBBO \29\ component A: 4.00(10) x 5.00(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ The term ``EBBO'' means the best bid or offer on the Simple
Order Book on the Exchange. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EBBO component B: 2.00(10) x

2.50(10)
    NBBO \30\ component A: 4.05(10) x 4.15(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ The term ``NBBO'' means the national best bid or offer as
calculated by the Exchange based on market information received by
the Exchange from OPRA. See Exchange Rule 100.

    NBBO component B: 2.30(10) x 2.40(10)
    icEBBO:\31\ 1.50 (10) x 3.00 (10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ The Implied Complex MIAX Emerald Best Bid or Offer
(``icEBBO'') is a calculation that uses the best price from the
Simple Order Book for each component of a complex strategy including
displayed and non-displayed trading interest. See Exchange Rule
518(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    cNBBO: \32\ 1.65 (10) x 1.85 (10)

    \32\ The Complex National Best Bid or Offer (``cNBBO'') is
calculated using the NBBO for each component of a complex strategy
to establish the best net bid and offeror a complex strategy. See
Exchange Rule 518(a)(2).

    The Exchange receives a new order (Order 2) to buy 20 at $2.25.
    Order 2 buys 10 from Order 1 at $1.90 and initiates the Complex
Liquidity Exposure Process: Order 2 reprices to its protected price of
$2.10 (cNBO of 1.85 + 0.25) and is posted at that price on the Strategy
Book and the Complex Liquidity Exposure Process Auction begins.
    During the cLEP Auction the Exchange receives a new order (Order 3)
to sell 10 at $2.10. This order locks the current same side Book Price
of $2.10. At the end of the auction, Order 3 sells 10 to Order 2 at
$2.10, filling both Order 2 and Order 3.
Example 2
MPC: $0.25

    The Exchange has one order resting on its book in Strategy +1
component A, -1 component B:

Order 1 is to sell 10 at $1.90
    EBBO component A: 4.00(10) x 5.00(10)
    EBBO component B: 2.00(10) x 2.50(10)
    NBBO component A: 4.05(10) x 4.15(10)
    NBBO component B: 2.30(10) x 2.40(10)
    icEBBO: 1.50 (10) x 3.00 (10)
    cNBBO: 1.65 (10) x 1.85 (10)

    The Exchange receives a new order (Order 2) to buy 20 at $2.25.
    Order 2 buys 10 from Order 1 at $1.90 and initiates the Complex
Liquidity Exposure Process: Order 2 reprices to its protected price of
$2.10 (cNBO of 1.85 + 0.25) and is posted at that price on the Strategy
Book and the Complex Liquidity Exposure Process Auction begins.
    No new liquidity arrives during the Auction. At the end of the
Auction, Order 2 reprices to its limit of $2.25 and is posted at that
price on the Strategy Book, ending the Complex Liquidity Exposure
Process.
Example 3
MPC: $0.25

    The Exchange has one order resting on its book in Strategy +1
component A, -1 component B:

Order 1 is to sell 10 at $1.90
    EBBO component A: 4.00(10) x 5.00(10)
    EBBO component B: 2.00(10) x 2.50(10)
    NBBO component A: 4.05(10) x 4.15(10)
    NBBO component B: 2.30(10) x 2.40(10)
    icEBBO: 1.50 (10) x 3.00 (10)
    cNBBO: 1.65 (10) x 1.85 (10)

    The Exchange receives a new order (Order 2) to buy 20 at $2.45.
    Order 2 buys 10 from Order 1 at $1.90 and initiates the Complex
Liquidity Exposure Process: Order 2 reprices to its protected price of
$2.10 (cNBO of 1.85 + 0.25) and is posted at that price on the Strategy
Book and the Complex Liquidity Exposure Process Auction begins.
    No new liquidity arrives during the Auction. At the end of the
Auction, Order 2 reprices to its next protected price of $2.35 (prior
protected price of 2.10 + 0.25) and is posted at that price on the
Strategy Book and the Complex Liquidity Exposure Process Auction
begins.
    No new liquidity arrives during the Auction. At the end of the
Auction, Order 2 reprices to its limit of $2.45 and is posted at that
price on the Strategy Book, ending the Complex Liquidity Exposure
Process.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend subsection (b) of
Interpretation and Policy .05 to adopt new rule text stating that the
Calendar Spread Variance (``CSV'') price protection applies only to
strategies in American-style option classes. A Calendar Spread is a
complex strategy consisting of the purchase of one call (put) option
and the sale of another call (put) option overlying the same security
that have different expirations but the same strike price. The CSV
establishes a minimum trading price limit for Calendar Spreads. The
maximum possible value of a Calendar Spread is unlimited, thus there is
no maximum price protection for Calendar Spreads. The minimum possible
trading price limit of a Calendar Spread is zero minus the pre-set
value of $.10. This ensures that the Strategy doesn't trade more than
$.10 away from its intrinsic value. (On a basic level the price of an
American-style option is comprised of two components; intrinsic value
and time value. If the strike price of a call option is $5.00 and the
stock is priced at $6.00, there is $1.00 of intrinsic value in the
price of the call option, anything above $1.00 represents the time
value component.) An American-style option must be worth at least as
much as its intrinsic value because the holder of the option can
realize the intrinsic value by immediately exercising the option. In a
Calendar Spread strategy comprised of American-style options, ceteris
paribus, the far month should be worth more than the near month due to
its having a longer time to expiration and therefore a greater time
value. As European-style options \33\ may only be exercised on their
expiration date, the relationship between the stock price, option
price, and option strike price that exists for American-style options
does not exist for European-style options. Therefore the CSV price
protection would be ineffective and will not be available for
strategies comprised of European-style options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The term ``European-style option'' means an option contract
that, subject to the provisions of Rule 700 (relating to the cutoff
time for exercise instructions) and to the Rules of the Clearing
Corporation, can be exercised only on its expiration date. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange believes that although MIAX Emerald
rules may, in certain instances, intentionally differ from MIAX Options
rules, the proposed changes will promote uniformity with MIAX Options
with respect to rules that are intended to be identical. MIAX Emerald
and MIAX Options may have a number of Members in common, and where
feasible the Exchange intends to implement similar behavior to provide
consistency between MIAX Options and MIAX Emerald so as to avoid
confusion among Members.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \34\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \35\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in

general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \35\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to eliminate the Defined
Time Period to allow Complex Auctions \36\ to occur throughout the
trading session 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 removing an unnecessary
barrier which prevented Complex Auctions from occurring with less than
two seconds left in the trading session. The current anticipated
duration of a Complex Auction is just 200 milliseconds. The Exchange
believes it is in the best interest of the investor to allow for
opportunities for price improvement throughout the entire trading
session. In the event that a Member initiates a Complex Auction and no
Members respond, the initiating Member is no worse off under the
proposed rule than the Member would have been under the current rule
which prevents the Member from even attempting to initiate a Complex
Auction with less than two seconds left in the trading session.
Additionally, a Member who initiates a Complex Auction will not forego
the opportunity to trade with unrelated interest received during the
Auction period, as this interest is included in the Complex
Auction.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Complex Auctions are described in Exchange Rule 518(d) and
are separate and distinct from cPRIME Auctions which are described
in Interpretation and Policy .12 of Exchange Rule 515A, MIAX Price
Improvement Mechanism (``PRIME'') and PRIME Solicitation Mechanism.
    \37\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed changes promote just and
equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
because they seek to add additional detail to, and improve the accuracy
of, the Exchange's rules. In particular, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule changes will provide clarity and transparency of the
Exchange's rules to Members and the public, and it is in the public
interest for rules to be accurate and concise so as to minimize the
potential for confusion.
    Further, the Exchange believes that providing a TMPC Price during a
Complex Auction or a cPRIME Auction protects investors against
executions at potentially erroneous prices. Additionally, the Exchange
believes that adding additional detail to the Exchange's rules
regarding the operation of MIAX [sic] Options Price Collar, and
including the method of calculating a TMPC Price for the limited
circumstances when one is used, promotes just and equitable principles
of trade and removes impediments to a free and open market by providing
greater transparency concerning the operation of Exchange
functionality.
    The Exchange also believes its proposal to adopt a Complex
Liquidity Exposure Process promotes just and equitable principles of
trade and removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free
and open market and a national market system and, in general, protects
investors and the public interest. The Complex Liquidity Exposure
Process provides an additional opportunity for price discovery for
those orders that would trade through their MPC Price. The Exchange
believes its proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade
as it is in the best interest of the Member to seek liquidity for the
unexecuted portion of the order which exceeds the order's MPC Price
rather than to simply cancel the unexecuted portion back to the
Member.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The Exchange notes that Members who believe that an
execution has occurred at an erroneous price may avail themselves of
the protections provided in Exchange Rule 521, Nullification and
Adjustment of Options Transactions Including Obvious Errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that its proposal to amend
Interpretation and Policy .05(f) to reflect the changes resulting from
the introduction of the Complex Liquidity Exposure Process promotes
just and equitable principles of trade, and removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by
clearly describing the operation of the Exchange's functionality in the
Exchange's rules. The Exchange believes it is in the interest of
investors and the public to accurately describe the behavior of the
Exchange's System in its rules as this information may be used by
investors to make decisions concerning the submission of their orders.
Further, the Exchange's proposal to make non-substantive changes to re-
number certain paragraphs for internal consistency within the rule
benefits investors and the public interest by providing clarity and
accuracy in the Exchange's rules.
    Finally, the Exchange believes its proposal to clarify that the
Calendar Spread Variance (CSV) price protection is available only for
American-style options promotes just and equitable principles of trade,
and removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms of a free and
open market and a national market system and, in general, and protects
investors and the public interest by providing clarity and precision in
the Exchange's rules. Given that European-style options may only be
exercised on their expiration date, the CSV price protection would be
ineffective for strategies comprised of European-style options.
Therefore, under the Exchange's proposal, the CSV price protection will
not be available for strategies comprised of European-style options.
The Exchange believes it is in the interest of investors and the public
to accurately describe the behavior of the Exchange's System in its
rules as this information may be used by investors to make decisions
concerning the submission of their orders. Transparency and clarity are
consistent with the Act because it removes impediments to and helps
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by
accurately describing the behavior of the Exchange's System. In
particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
provide greater clarity to Members and the public regarding the
Exchange's Rules, and it is in the public interest for rules to be
accurate and concise so as to eliminate the potential for confusion.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on inter-market competition. The Exchange's proposal seeks
to enhance complex order trading on the Exchange, and may potentially
enhance competition among the various markets for complex order
execution, potentially resulting in more active complex order trading
on all exchanges. The changes to the Exchange rules concerning the use
of a TMPC Price is designed to add additional detail to the rules to
further clarify the operation of Exchange functionality and to minimize
the potential for confusion.
    Additionally, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule
change will impose any burden on intra-market competition as the Rules
apply equally to all Members of 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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \39\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \40\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \40\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \41\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \42\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. In its filing
with the Commission, the Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the
30-day operative delay to allow MIAX Emerald to harmonize its rules
with those of MIAX Options. MIAX Emerald states that the proposal will
implement functionality that is identical to functionality currently
operative on MIAX Options \43\ and does not raise new regulatory
issues. In addition, as discussed above, MIAX Emerald notes that MIAX
Emerald and MIAX Options may have a number of Members in common, and
that, where feasible, MIAX Emerald intends to implement similar
behavior to provide consistency between MIAX Options and MIAX Emerald
to avoid confusion among Members. The Commission believes that waiving
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest because it will allow MIAX Emerald to
harmonize its rules with those of MIAX Options, thereby reducing the
potential for confusion among market participants that are Members of
both MIAX Emerald and MIAX Options. In addition, the Commission notes
that the proposed rule change is based on substantively identical rules
of MIAX Options and thus raises no new regulatory issues. Accordingly,
the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \42\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \43\ See supra note 3, and accompanying text.
    \44\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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.

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- EMERALD-2019-14 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-EMERALD-2019-14. 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-EMERALD-2019-14 and should be submitted
on or before April 12, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05468 Filed 3-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P