PERSONAL COMMUNICATION  PHONE CALL TO: Bob Haas, Michigan DNR / Lake Erie Technical Committee Chairman FROM: Megan Harrod, Stratus Consulting Inc.

DATE: 11/ 20/ 2002 RE: Population status of I& E species in Ohio and Michigan waters of Lake Erie Asked if burbot, channel catfish, common carp, crappie, freshwater drum, gizzard shad, smallmouth bass, smelt, suckers, sunfish, walleye, white bass, and yellow perch are being overfished or are approaching overfished state for Exhibit 1 in fisheries status memo. He said that all species except white bass are not being overfished, nor are they approaching an overfished state. White bass populations declined in the 1990s but may be recovering now. They are not well studied, so it is unclear whether the population decline is due to overfishing or other stresses.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 48591]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19910]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2012-0066]

State Rail Plan Guidance

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Request for Public Comment on Proposed State Rail Plan
Guidance.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is publishing this notice to request comments on FRA's
technical guidance for the development, submission, and acceptance of
State rail plans. State rail plans are documents that are required
under Section 303 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act
of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-432). Section 303 of PRIIA provides for enhanced
State involvement in rail policy, planning, and development efforts,
including requiring States to develop FRA-accepted State rail plans in
order to be eligible for the capital grants authorized in the Act and
available under the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program. This
guidance provides an explanation of the process to be followed in
developing State rail plans, FRA's process for reviewing and accepting
State rail plans, a standardized format, and a list of the minimum
content requirements of State rail plans established in Section 303.
The State Rail Plan Guidance document is available on FRA's Web site at
http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/Passenger/fp_Proposed_State_Rail_Plan_Guidance.shtml.

DATES: Public comments on the proposed guidance are due on or before
October 15, 2012.
    ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments are not entered into the docket
more than once, please submit comments, identified by docket number
FRA-2012-0066, by only one of the following methods:
    (1) Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments on the U.S. Government electronic docket site;
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
    (3) Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Docket Operations, M-30, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
or
    (4) Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the first floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions for submitting public comments: All submissions must
make reference to the ``Federal Railroad Administration'' and include
docket number FRA-2012-0066. Due to security procedures in effect since
October 2001, mail received through the U.S. Postal Service may be
subject to delays. Parties making submissions responsive to this notice
should consider using an express mail firm to ensure the prompt filing
of any submissions not filed electronically or by hand. If comments are
submitted by mail or by hand, please submit two copies of the comments.
For confirmation that the FRA has received the comments, a self-
addressed stamped postcard must be included. Note that all submissions
received, including any personal information therein, will be posted
without change or alteration to http://www.regulations.gov. For more
information, you may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or visit
http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice,
please contact Kyle Gradinger, Transportation Industry Analyst, Office
of Railroad Policy and Development, Federal Railroad Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., W36-430, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
(202) 493-6191.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 7, 2012.
Corey Hill,
Director, Project Development and Delivery.
[FR Doc. 2012-19910 Filed 8-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 93 (Tuesday, May 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28262-28265]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11369]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69535; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Exchange Rule 9.21

May 8, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 25, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been substantially
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to update Exchange Rule 9.21, ``Options
Communications.'' The text of the proposed rule change is provided
below. (additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

* * * * *

Rule 9.21. Options Communications

    (a) Definitions. For purposes of this Rule and any interpretation
thereof, ``options communications'' consist of:
    (i) [Advertisements. The term ``advertisements'' shall include any
material concerning options, other than an independently prepared
reprint and institutional sales material, that is published, or used in
any electronic or other public media, including any Web site,
newspaper, magazine or other periodical, radio, television, telephone
or tape recording, video tape display, motion picture, billboards,
signs or telephone directories (other than routine listings).
    (ii) Sales Literature. The term ``sales literature'' shall include
any written or electronic communication concerning options other than
an advertisement, independently prepared reprint, institutional sales
material and correspondence, that is generally available to customers
or the public, including circulars, research reports, performance
reports or summaries, worksheets, form letters, telemarketing scripts,
seminar texts, reprints (that are not independently prepared reprints)
or excerpts of any other advertisement, sales literature or published
article and press release concerning a Trading Permit Holder's products
or services.
    (iii)] Correspondence. The term ``correspondence'' shall include
any written [letter,] (including electronic) [mail message or market
letter] communication distributed or made available [by a Trading
Permit Holder] to[: (A) one of more of its existing retail customers;
and (B)] 25 or fewer [than 25 prospective] retail customers within any
30 calendar-day period.
    [(iv)] (ii) Institutional Communication [Sales Material]. The term
``institutional communication [sales material]'' shall include any
written (including electronic) communication concerning options that is
distributed or made available only to institutional investors, but does
not include a Trading Permit Holder's internal communications. The term
institutional investor shall mean any qualified investor as defined in
Section 3(a)(54) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
    (iii) Retail Communication. The term ``retail communication'' means
any written (including electronic) communication that is distributed or
made available to more than 25 retail investors within any 30 calendar-
day period.
    [(v) Public Appearances. The term ``public appearance'' shall
include any participation in a seminar, forum (including an interactive
electronic forum), radio, television or print media interview, or other
public speaking activity, or the writing of a print media article,
concerning options.
    (vi) Independently Prepared Reprints. The term ``independently
prepared reprints'' shall include any reprint or excerpt of an article
issued by a publisher concerning options, provided that: the publisher
is not an affiliate of the Trading Permit Holder using the reprint or
any underwriter or issuer of a security mentioned in the reprint or
excerpt that the Trading Permit Holder is promoting; neither the
Trading Permit Holder using the reprint or excerpt nor any underwriter
or issuer of a security mentioned in the reprint or excerpt has
commissioned the reprint or excerpted article; and the Trading Permit
Holder using the reprint or excerpt has not materially altered its
contents except as necessary to make the reprint or excerpt consistent
with applicable regulatory standards or to correct factual errors.]
    (b) Approval by Registered Options Principal.
    (i) All retail communications [advertisements, sales literature]
(except completed worksheets) [and independently prepared reprints]
issued by a Trading Permit Holder or TPH organization pertaining to
options shall be approved in advance by a Registered Options Principal
designated by the Trading Permit Holder or TPH organization's written
supervisory procedures.
    (ii) Correspondence need not be approved by a Registered Options
Principal prior to use[, unless such correspondence is distributed to
25 or more existing retail customers within any 30 calendar-day period
and makes any financial or investment recommendation or otherwise
promotes a product or service of the Trading Permit Holder]. All
correspondence is subject to the supervision and review requirements of
Rule 9.8.

    (iii) Institutional communications. Each Trading Permit Holder or
TPH organization shall establish written procedures that are
appropriate to its business, size, structure, and customers for review
by a Registered Options Principal of institutional communications used
by[sales material relating to options need not be approved by a
Registered Options Principal prior to use, but is subject to the
supervision and review requirements as set forth in the written
supervisory procedures of] the Trading Permit Holder or TPH
organization.
    (iv) No change.
    (c) Exchange Approval Required. In addition to the approval
required by paragraph (b) of this Rule, [all advertisements, sales
literature and independently prepared reprints] retail communications
of a Trading Permit Holder or TPH organization pertaining to
standardized options that is not accompanied or preceded by the
applicable current options disclosure document (``ODD'') shall be
submitted to the Exchange at least ten calendar days prior to use (or
such shorter period as the Exchange may allow in particular instances)
for approval and, if changed or expressly disapproved by the Exchange,
shall be withheld from circulation until any changes specified by the
Exchange have been made or, in the event of disapproval, until the
communication has been resubmitted for, and has received, Exchange
approval. The requirements of this paragraph shall not be applicable
to:
    (i) Options communications submitted to another self-regulatory
organization having comparable standards pertaining to such
communications and
    (ii) communications in which the only reference to options is
contained in a listing of the services of the TPH organization[.];
    (iii) the ODD; and
    (iv) the prospectus.
    (d) General Rule. No Trading Permit Holder or member organization
or associated person shall use any options communication which:
    (i)-(iv) No change.
    (v) Fails to reflect the risks attendant to options transactions
and the complexities of certain options investment strategies. [Any
statement referring to the potential opportunities presented by options
shall be balanced by a statement of the corresponding risks. The risk
statement shall reflect the same degree of specificity as the statement
of opportunities, and broad generalities must be avoided.]
    (vi-vii) No change.
    (viii) would constitute a prospectus as that term is defined in the
Securities Act of 1933, unless it meets the requirements of Section 10
of the Securities Act of 1933.
    Paragraphs (vi) and (vii) shall not apply to institutional
communications [sales material] as defined in this Rule 9.21. Any
statement in any options communications referring to the potential
opportunities or advantages presented by options shall be balanced by a
statement of the corresponding risks. The risk statement shall reflect
the same degree of specificity as the statement of opportunities, and
broad generalities must be avoided.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to update Rule 9.21, ``Options
Communications,'' to conform with changes recently made by the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') to its
corresponding rule.\3\ The proposed rule change would make changes to
the Exchange Rule 9.21, ``Options Communications.'' The Exchange
believes the proposed changes will alert Trading Permit Holders
(``TPHs'') to their requirements with respect to Options Communications
while further regulating all communications for compliance with
Exchange Rules and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'').
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
help ensure that investors are protected from potentially false or
misleading communications with the public distributed by Exchange TPHs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 34-68650
(January 14, 2013), 78 FR 4182 (January 18, 2013) (Notice of
Immediate Effectiveness of SR-FINRA-2013-001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the proposed rule change would amend the language in
Exchange Rule 9.21(a). Specifically, the proposed rule change would
reduce the number of defined categories of communication from six (in
the current rule) to three. The proposed three categories of
communications are: retail communications, correspondence, and
institutional communications. Current definitions of ``sales
literature,'' ``advertisement,'' and ``independently prepared reprint''
would be combined into a single category of ``retail communications.''
Thus, the Exchange is proposing to define ``retail communication'' as
``any written (including electronic) communication that is distributed
or made available to more than 25 retail investors within any 30
calendar-day period.'' The Exchange will also update the current
definition of ``correspondence'' to ``any written (including
electronic) communication distributed or made available by a Trading
Permit Holder to 25 or fewer retail customers within any 30 calendar-
day period.'' Finally, in the proposed rule filing, ``institutional
communication'' would include written (including electronic)
communications that are distributed or made available only to
institutional investors. The Exchange believes the proposed changes to
the definitions in Rule 9.21(a) to create a more concise and
descriptive rule which benefits investors by clarifying the terms.
    Next, the Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 9.21(b), ``Approval
by Registered Options Principal.'' More specifically, the Exchange is
proposing to replace the phrase ``advertisements, sales literature, and
independently prepared reprints'' in Rule 9.21(b)(i) with the new
proposed term, ``retail communications.'' This proposed change will
make the Rule more consistent with the other proposed changes.
    Under proposed rule 9.21(b)(ii), correspondence would ``need not be
approved by a Registered Options Principal prior to use'' but would be
subject to the supervision and review requirements of Rule 9.8. The
Exchange is proposing to delete the requirement for principal approval
of correspondence that is distributed to 25 or more existing retail
customers within a 30 calendar-day period that makes any financial or
investment recommendation or otherwise promotes

the product or service of a TPH. Under the proposed Rule 9.21(b), such
communications would be considered retail communications and therefore
subject to the principal approval requirement. As such, the proposed
change does not substantively change the scope of options
communications that would require principal approval.
    Next, the Exchange is proposing to modify the required approvals of
``Institutional communications.'' More specifically, the Exchange is
proposing to add that a TPH shall ``establish written procedures that
are appropriate to its business, size, structure, and customers for
review by a Registered Options Principal of institutional
communications used by the Trading Permit Holder or TPH organization.''
The Exchange is proposing these changes to conform its rule with the
current FINRA rule.
    The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 9.21(c). More
specifically, the Exchange is proposing to, again, replace the phrase
``advertisements, sales literature, and independently prepared
reprints'' with the new proposed term ``retail communications.'' The
Exchange is also proposing to further exempt options disclosure
documents and prospectuses from Exchange review as these documents have
other further requirements under the Securities Act of 1933. The
Exchange is proposing these changes to conform its rule with the
current FINRA rule.
    The Exchange is proposing to specify in Rule 9.21(d) that Exchange
TPHs may not use any options communications that ``constitute a
prospectus'' unless such communications would meet the requirements of
the Securities Act of 1933. The Exchange believes this change will put
TPHs on notice that all documents that may constitute a prospectus will
be required to comply with the Securities Act of 1933 as such. Finally,
the Exchange is proposing to move and slightly modify Rule 9.21(d) to
state that any statement made referring to ``potential opportunities or
advantages presented by options'' must also be accompanied by a
statement identifying the potential risks posed. The Exchange believes
that moving the language to the end of paragraph (d) will alert the
public of potential risks associated with options, as well as the
advantages, which will create more awareness of the potential harms
that may arise in the participation of such securities. The Exchange is
proposing these changes to conform its rule with the current FINRA
rule. The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes will provide
greater clarity to TPHs and the public regarding the Exchange's rules.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
help ensure that investors are protected from potentially false or
misleading communications with the public distributed by Exchange TPHs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\4\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirement that the rules of
an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes will
provide greater clarity to TPHs and the public regarding the Exchange's
rules. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
will help ensure that investors are protected from potentially false or
misleading communications with the public distributed by Exchange TPHs.

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

    CBOE 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. Specifically, the proposed rule
change will bring clarity and consistency to Exchange Rules. The
Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on any intramarket competition as it applies to all TPHs. In
addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule filing will
bring any unnecessary burden on intermarket competition as it is
consistent with the FINRA ``Options Communications'' rule.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See FINRA Rule 2220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-CBOE-2013-043 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-043. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used.
    To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the

Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-043 and should be
submitted on or before June 4, 2013.

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

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11369 Filed 5-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 234 (Thursday, December 6, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62951-62952]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26511]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0072; Notice 1]

Michelin North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Michelin North America, Inc. (MNA) has determined that certain
Michelin XZL brand tires do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles
with a GVWR of more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 lbs) and Motorcycles.
MNA filed a noncompliance report dated May 21, 2018, and subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on June 15, 2018, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is January 7,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    MNA has determined that certain Michelin brand tires do not fully
comply with paragraph S6.4 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 119, New Pneumatic Tires for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of
more than 4,536 kilograms (10,000 lbs) and Motorcycles (49 CFR
571.119). MNA filed a noncompliance report dated May 21, 2018, pursuant
to 49 CFR part 573, Defects and Noncompliance Responsibility and
Reports. MNA subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June 18, 2018, pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 20118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.

II. Tires Involved

    Approximately 752 Michelin XZL size 16.00R20 tires manufactured
between January 19, 2018, and April 9, 2018, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    MNA explains that the noncompliance was due to a mold error which
left the subject tires with fewer than the required number of treadwear
indicators specified in paragraph S6.4 of FMVSS No. 119. Specifically,
the tires were manufactured with 4 rows of treadwear indicators instead
of the required minimum of 6 treadwear indicators.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S6.4 of FMVSS No. 119, includes the requirements relevant
to this petition:
     Except as specified, each tire shall have at least six
treadwear indicators spaced approximately equally around the
circumference of the tire that enable a person inspecting the tire to
determine visually whether the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1.6 mm
(one-sixteenth of an inch). Tires with a rim diameter code of 12 or
smaller shall have at least three such treadwear indicators. Motorcycle
tires shall have at least three such indicators which permit visual
determination that the tire has worn to a tread depth of 0.8 mm (one-
thirty-second of an inch).

V. Summary of Petition

    MNA described the subject noncompliance and stated its belief that
the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.
    In support of its petition, MNA submitted the following arguments:
    1. Functionality: Truck tires normally have 6 treadwear indicators
spaced equally around the circumference of the tire. The function of
these indicators is to enable a person inspecting the tire to determine
visually whether the tire has worn to a tread depth of 1.6 mm (1/16
in). In the case where tires have 6 treadwear indicators spaced equally
around the tire, the indicators would appear at 60 degree intervals
around the circumference of the tread. In the case of the subject
tires, the 4 treadwear indicators are equally spaced; thus, appearing
at 90 degree intervals around the circumference of the tread area of
the tire. When normally loaded, approximately 10 percent of the tread
band is in contact with the road surface. In most truck applications,
the remaining 90 percent of the tread band is accessible for
inspection. In the event that a vehicle is parked with one of the
treadwear indicators positioned in the ground contact patch area, three
other treadwear indicators would be accessible around the circumference
of the tire.
    In addition, MNA tires have a molded ``Bib'' symbol on the tread
shoulder to indicate the location of the treadwear indicator. These
molded symbols aid the person inspecting the tire to visually locate
the treadwear indicator and determine if the tire has worn to the
extent that the tread depth is 1.6 mm (1/16 in) or less.
    2. NHTSA's Prior Decisions: NHTSA has previously granted Petitions
for Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance in similar cases
related to 49 CFR 571.119 S6.4 treadwear indicators.
    On August 19, 2014, NHTSA issued a Grant of Petition to Cooper Tire
and Rubber Company with the following comments: ``NHTSA Analysis: The
purpose for tire treadwear indicators is to serve as a means for a
person to visually inspect a tire's tread depth and readily determine
if a tire has worn to the extent that tread depth is 1.6 mm (one-
sixteenth of an inch) or less.
    Cooper stated that while the subject tires were molded with only
five treadwear indicators that it believes that those indicators still
provide ample coverage over the surface of the tire. NHTSA agrees with
Cooper that in this case the subject noncompliance will have no
significant effect on the safety of the vehicles on which the subject
tires are mounted. The subject tires have five indicators; 4 indicators
spaced at 60 degrees and one indicator spaced at 120 degrees. NHTSA
believes that in this case, the absence of a single indicator does not
significantly affect a person's ability to visually inspect a tire and
readily recognize when a significant portion of the tire's tread is
worn to the point that a tire should be replaced.''
    In the Cooper decision it is relevant to note:
    (a) While the Cooper Mickey Thompson Baja MTZ tires had only one
missing treadwear indicator, the maximum circumferential space between
the two most distant treadwear indicators was 120 degrees. NHTSA
determined that this confirmation of treadwear indicators does not
significantly affect a person's ability to inspect a tire. In MNA's
case, the maximum circumferential space between the two most distant
treadwear indicators is less, at 90 degrees.
    (b) The Cooper petition cites a Grant of Petition issued to Motor
Bikes Imports, Inc. in 1987 which included a 49 CFR 571.119 S6.4
noncompliance related to motor bike tires with only l treadwear
indicator. NHTSA's decision stated a ``relatively small number of tires
which remain in use nevertheless bear one treadwear indicator''
concluding the existence of only a single treadwear indicator combined
with the relatively low volume of tires in the market were
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety.
    3. Product Performance & Monitoring: Product Performance &
Monitoring MNA has no indication through our customer care network,
fleet contacts or field engineers, of any issues related to monitoring
and measuring of treadwear on the l6.00R20 XZL tires. The lack of two
treadwear indicators on the tire was detected in the manufacturing
process. We have no customer complaints or warranty claims related to
the reduced number of treadwear indicators. The reduced number of
treadwear indicators has no impact on product performance. Product
performance and customer satisfaction of the subject tires is
equivalent to tires produced with 6 treadwear indicators. The tires
comply with all safety standards and tire marking requirements of 49
CFR 571.119.
    MNA's complete petition and all supporting documents are available
by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at:
https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online search
instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title of this
notice.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject tires that MNA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant tires under their control after MNA
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Claudia W. Covell,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-26511 Filed 12-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 74 (Thursday, April 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21827-21829]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08688]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-71935; File No. SR-BATS-2014-010]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use of BATS Exchange, Inc.

April 11, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 31, 2014, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing
a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BATS Rules
15.1(a) and (c). Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this proposal
are effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is any registered broker or dealer that has been
admitted to membership in the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts 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 modify its fee schedule applicable to use
of the Exchange in order to modify the way that, for purposes of tiered
pricing on the Exchange's equities trading platform (``BATS
Equities''), the Exchange calculates ADV, ADAV, and average daily TCV
(as such terms are defined below). Similarly, the Exchange proposes to
modify the way that, for purposes of tiered pricing applicable to use
of the Exchange's equity options trading platform (``BATS Options''),
the Exchange calculates ADV and TCV.
    Currently, with respect to BATS Equities, the Exchange determines
the liquidity adding rebate that it will provide to Members based on
the Exchange's tiered pricing structure by excluding from the
calculation of ADV,\6\ ADAV,\7\ and average daily TCV \8\ any day that
an Exchange Outage occurs. An Exchange Outage is defined as any day
that trading is not available on the Exchange for more than sixty (60)
minutes during regular trading hours \9\ but continues on other markets
during such time.\10\ The Exchange proposes to modify the definition of
Exchange Outage to include situations where the Exchange experiences a
systems disruption that lasts for more than 60 minutes during regular
trading hours, even if such disruption would not be categorized as a
complete outage of the Exchange's system, and to rename it as an
``Exchange System Disruption.'' As an example, an Exchange System
Disruption may occur where a certain group of securities (i.e.,
securities in a select symbol range such as A through C) traded on the
Exchange is unavailable for trading due to an Exchange system issue.
Similarly, the Exchange may be able to perform certain functions with
respect to accepting and processing orders, but may have a failure to
another significant process, such as routing to other market centers,
that would lead Members that rely on such process to avoid utilizing
the Exchange until the Exchange's entire system was operational.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ As provided in the fee schedule, for purposes of BATS
Equities pricing, ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as
the number of shares added or removed, combined, per day on a
monthly basis; routed shares are not included in ADV calculation.
    \7\ As provided in the fee schedule, for purposes of BATS
Equities pricing, ``ADAV'' means average daily volume [sic]
calculated as the number of shares added per day on a monthly basis;
routed shares are not included in ADV [sic] calculation.
    \8\ As provided in the fee schedule, for purposes of BATS
Equities pricing, ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated
as the volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting
facilities to a consolidated transaction reporting plan for the
month for which the fees apply.
    \9\ The term ``regular trading hours'' means the ``time between
9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(w).
    \10\ The Exchange notes that it also excludes the last Friday of
June from the calculation of ADAV, ADV and average daily TCV for
purposes of BATS Equities pricing. The last day of June is the day
that Russell Investments reconstitutes its family of indexes
(``Russell Reconstitution''), resulting in particularly high trading
volumes, much of which the Exchange believes derives from market
participants who are not generally as active entering the market to
rebalance their holdings in-line with the Russell Reconstitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this modification is reasonable because
the intent of the current Exchange Outage exclusion has always been to
avoid penalizing Members that might otherwise qualify for certain
tiered pricing but that, because of a significant Exchange system
problem, did not participate on the Exchange to the extent that they
might have otherwise participated. The Exchange believes that certain
systems disruptions could preclude some Members from submitting orders
to the Exchange even if such issue is not actually a complete systems
outage. The Exchange notes that it is not proposing to modify any of
the existing rebates or the percentage thresholds at which a Member may
qualify for certain rebates pursuant to the tiered pricing structure.
Rather, as mentioned above, the Exchange is proposing to modify its fee
schedule to exclude trading activity occurring on any day that the
Exchange experiences an Exchange System Disruption.
    The Exchange also currently applies a tiered pricing structure to
BATS Options, determining the fees charged for removing liquidity and
rebates provided for adding liquidity based on the Member's ADV \11\ as
a percent of average daily TCV.\12\ The Exchange notes that its
definitions of ADV and TCV do not currently contain any exclusions. The
Exchange proposes to

adopt for the definitions of both ADV and TCV for BATS Options the same
Exchange System Disruption exclusion for BATS Equities described above.
Such exclusion would apply to situations where the Exchange experiences
a systems disruption that lasts for more than 60 minutes during regular
trading hours. As is true for BATS Equities, the Exchange believes that
certain systems disruptions could preclude some Members of BATS Options
from submitting orders to the Exchange even if such issue is not
actually a complete systems outage. The Exchange notes that it is not
proposing to modify any of the existing rebates or the percentage
thresholds at which a Member may qualify for certain rebates pursuant
to the tiered pricing structure. Rather, as mentioned above, the
Exchange is proposing to modify its fee schedule to exclude trading
activity occurring on any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange
System Disruption. The Exchange also notes that it is not proposing to
adopt for BATS Options the Russell Reconstitution exclusion that is
currently available for BATS Equities.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As provided in the fee schedule, for purposes of BATS
Options pricing, ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as
the number of contracts added or removed, combined, per day on a
monthly basis; routed contracts are not included in ADV calculation.
    \12\ As provided in the fee schedule, for purposes of BATS
Options pricing, ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated
as the volume reported by all exchanges to the consolidated
transaction reporting plan for the month for which the fees apply.
    \13\ See supra note 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that eliminating days where an Exchange
System Disruption occurs from the definition of ADV, ADAV and TCV for
BATS Equities, and ADV and TCV for BATS Options, will provide Members
with increased certainty as to their monthly cost for trades executed
on the Exchange. The amended definition for BATS Equities would enable
the Exchange to eliminate the day an Exchange System Disruption occurs
from the calculation as it relates to rebates and fees based on trading
activity on the Exchange, thereby providing Members greater certainty
as to their monthly ADV or ADAV as a percentage of average daily TCV
and the tiered rebates or fees for which they will qualify. Adopting
the modified definition for BATS Options will enable the Exchange to
provide the same additional certainty with respect to tiered pricing
for BATS Options and will also promote uniformity between the
Exchange's trading platforms.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act.\14\
Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\ in that it provides for
the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange notes that it operates in a
highly competitive market in which market participants can readily
direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed changes to the tiered pricing
structure for adding liquidity to BATS Equities and for both removing
liquidity from and adding liquidity to BATS Options, the Exchange
believes that its proposal is reasonable because, as explained above,
it will help provide Members with a greater level of certainty as to
their level of rebates and costs for trading in any month where the
Exchange experiences an Exchange System Disruption on one or more
trading days. The Exchange is not proposing to amend the thresholds a
Member must achieve to become eligible for, or the dollar value
associated with, the tiered rebates or fees. By eliminating the
inclusion of a trading day on which an Exchange System Disruption
occurs the Exchange would almost certainly be excluding a day that
would otherwise lower a Member's ADV and/or ADAV as a percentage of
average daily TCV. Thus, the proposed change will make the majority of
Members more likely to meet the minimum or higher tier thresholds,
incentivizing Members to increase their participation on the Exchange
in order to meet the next highest tier. In addition, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes to its fee schedule are equitably
allocated among Exchange constituents and not unfairly discriminatory
as the methodology for calculating ADV, ADAV and TCV will apply equally
to all Members of BATS Equities, and the methodology for calculating
ADV and TCV will apply equally to all Members of BATS Options. While,
although unlikely, certain Members may have a higher ADV or ADAV as a
percentage of average daily TCV with their activity included from days
where the Exchange experiences an Exchange System Disruption, the
proposal will make all Members' cost of trading on the Exchange more
predictable, regardless of how the proposal affects their ADV or ADAV
as a percentage of average daily TCV.
    Volume-based tiers such as the liquidity adding tiers maintained by
the Exchange have been widely adopted, and are equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because they are open to all members on an
equal basis and provide higher rebates or lower fees that are
reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality
associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels
of liquidity provision and introduction of higher volumes of orders
into the price and volume discovery process. Accordingly, the Exchange
believes that the proposal is equitably allocated and not unfairly
discriminatory because it is consistent with the overall goals of
enhancing market quality. Further, the Exchange believes that a tiered
pricing model not significantly altered by a day of atypical trading
behavior which allows Members to predictably calculate what their costs
associated with trading activity on the Exchange will be is reasonable,
fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory as it is uniform
in application amongst Members and should enable such participants to
operate their business without concern of unpredictable and potentially
significant changes in expenses.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
proposed change will help to promote intramarket competition by
avoiding a penalty to Members for days when trading on the Exchange is
disrupted for a significant portion of the day. As stated above, the
Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues
if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or excessive.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \16\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\17\ At any time within

60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission
summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 No. SR-BATS-2014-010 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 No. SR-BATS-2014-010. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2014-010 and should be
submitted on or before May 8, 2014.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-08688 Filed 4-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 8575-8576]
[DOCID:fr17fe06-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD05-13-000]

Joint Boards on Security Constrained Economic Dispatch;
Supplemental Notice of Second South Joint Board Meeting

February 10, 2006.
    On January 6, 2006, the Commission announced that it planned to
hold further joint board meetings and that these meetings would take
place at the Hyatt Regency on Capitol Hill, 400 New Jersey Avenue, NW.,
in Washington DC. Take notice that the joint board meeting for the
South region is scheduled to take place on Sunday, February 12, 2006,
from 9:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. (e.s.t.) in the Yorktown Room.
    These meetings are held pursuant to section 1298 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58, Sec.  1298, 119 Stat. 594, 986
(2005). Section 1298 adds section 223 to the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 824 et seq. (2000), requiring the Commission to convene joint
boards on a regional basis pursuant to FPA section 209 ``to study the
issue of security constrained economic dispatch for the

various market regions,'' ``to consider issues relevant to what
constitutes `security constrained economic dispatch' and how such a
mode of operating . . . affects or enhances the reliability and
affordability of service,'' and ``to make recommendations to the
Commission.''
    Take further notice that attached are: (1) An agenda for the
meeting, (2) a draft study previously circulated to the board members,
and (3) recommendations to be considered by the board.
    Take further notice that the following changes have taken place to
the South Joint Board membership: former Chairman Braulio Baez was
replaced by Commissioner J. Terry Deason of the Florida Public Service
Commission, and former Commissioner Michael Callahan was replaced by
Dr. Christopher Garbacz, Director, Economics and Planning, Mississippi
Public Service Commission. A complete and updated list of board members
is available at http://www.ferc.gov.

    For more information about the meeting, please contact Sarah
McKinley at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-2265 Filed 2-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P