[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43524-43529]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15800]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 578

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0075]
RIN 2127-AL73

Civil Penalties

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

ACTION: Interim final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This interim final rule updates the maximum civil penalty
amounts for violations of statutes and regulations administered by
NHTSA pursuant the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act
Improvement Act of 2015. This final rule also amends our regulations to
reflect the new civil penalty amounts for violations of the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety (the Safety Act) Act authorized by the
Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act).

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective August 4, 2016.
    Petitions for reconsideration: Petitions for reconsideration of
this final rule must be received not later than August 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Any petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket
number of this document and be submitted to: Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building, Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Healy, Office of Chief
    Counsel, NHTSA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>,
1200 New Jersey Ave SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 2, 2015, the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation
Adjustment Act Improvement Act (the 2015 Act), Pub. L. 114-74, Section
701, was signed into law. The purpose of the 2015 Act is to improve the
effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their
deterrent effect. The 2015 Act requires agencies to make an initial
catch up adjustment to the civil monetary penalties they administer
through an interim final rule and then to make subsequent annual
adjustments for inflation. The amount of increase of any adjustment to
a civil penalty pursuant to the 2015 Act is limited to

150 percent of the current penalty. Agencies are required to issue the
interim final rule with the initial catch up adjustment by July 1,
2016.
    The method of calculating inflationary adjustments in the 2015 Act
differs substantially from the methods used in past inflationary
adjustment rulemakings conducted pursuant to the Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment
Act), Pub. L. 101-410. Previously, adjustments to civil penalties were
conducted under rules that required significant rounding of figures.
For example, a penalty increase that was greater than $1,000, but less
than or equal to $10,000, would be rounded to the nearest multiple of
$1,000. While this allowed penalties to be kept at round numbers, it
meant that penalties would often not be increased at all if the
inflation factor was not large enough. Furthermore, increases to
penalties were capped at 10 percent. Over time, this formula caused
penalties to lose value relative to total inflation.
    The 2015 Act has removed these rounding rules; now, penalties are
simply rounded to the nearest $1. While this creates penalty values
that are no longer round numbers, it does ensure that penalties will be
increased each year to a figure commensurate with the actual calculated
inflation. Furthermore, the 2015 Act ``resets'' the inflation
calculations by excluding prior inflationary adjustments under the
Inflation Adjustment Act, which contributed to a decline in the real
value of penalty levels. To do this, the 2015 Act requires agencies to
identify, for each penalty, the year and corresponding amount(s) for
which the maximum penalty level or range of minimum and maximum
penalties was established (i.e., originally enacted by Congress) or
last adjusted other than pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act.
    The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provided
guidance to agencies in a February 24, 2016 memorandum on how to
calculate the initial adjustment required by the 2015 Act.\1\ The
initial catch up adjustment is based on the change between the Consumer
Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October in
the year the penalty amount was established or last adjusted by
Congress and the October 2015 CPI-U. The February 24, 2016 memorandum
contains a table with a multiplier for the change in CPI-U from the
year the penalty was established or last adjusted to 2015. To arrive at
the adjusted penalty the agency must multiply the penalty amount when
it was established or last adjusted by Congress, excluding adjustments
under the Inflation Adjustment Act, by the multiplier for the increase
in CPI-U from the year the penalty was established or adjusted provided
in the February 24, 2016 memorandum. The 2015 Act limits the initial
inflationary adjustment to 150 percent of the current penalty. To
determine whether the increase in the adjusted penalty is less than 150
percent, the agency must multiply the current penalty by 250 percent.
The adjusted penalty is the lesser of either the adjusted penalty based
on the multiplier for CPI-U in Table A of the February 24, 2016
memorandum or an amount equal to 250% of the current penalty. This
interim final rule adjusts the civil penalties for violations of
statutes and regulations that NHTSA administers consistent with the
February 24, 2016 memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum from the Director of OMB to Heads of Executive
Departments and Agencies, Implementation of the Federal Civil
Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Feb.
24, 2016), available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-06.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Inflationary Adjustments to Penalty Amounts in 49 CFR Part 578

Changes to Civil Penalties for School Bus Related Violations of the
Safety Act (49 CFR 578.6(a)(2))

    The maximum civil penalty for a single violation of 30112(a)(1) of
Title 49 of the United States Code involving school buses or school bus
equipment, or of the prohibition on school system purchases and leases
of 15 passenger vans as specified in 30112(a)(2) of Title 49 of the
United States Code was set at $10,000 when the penalty was established
by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1942,
enacted in 2005. Applying the multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for
2005 in Table A of the February 24, 2016 memorandum (1.19397) results
in an adjusted civil penalty of $11,940. The maximum civil penalty for
a related series of violations of 30112(a)(1) and 30112(a)(2) was
$15,000,000 when the penalty was established by SAFETEA-LU in 2005.
Applying the multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 2005 results in
an adjusted maximum civil penalty of $17,909,550.

Changes to Civil Penalties for Filing False or Misleading Reports Under
49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(4)

    The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) of
2012, Pub. L. 112-141, established a maximum civil penalty for persons
knowingly or willfully submitting materially false or misleading
information to NHTSA after certifying that the information was accurate
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30166(o) of $5,000 per day. Applying the
multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 2012 in Table A of the
February 24, 2016 memorandum (1.02819) results in an adjusted civil
penalty of $5,141. MAP-21 established a maximum civil penalty for a
related series of daily violations of 49 U.S.C. 30166(o) of $1,000,000.
Applying the multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 2012 results in
an adjusted civil penalty of $1,028,190 for a related series of daily
violations of 49 U.S.C. 30166(o).

Change to Penalty for Violation of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 305 (49 CFR
578.6(b))

    The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-519, 204, 106 Stat.
3393 (1992) established a civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of
the reporting requirements related to maintaining the Nation Motor
Vehicle Title Information System. Applying the multiplier for the
increase in CPI-U for 1992 in Table A of the February 24, 2016
memorandum (1.67728) results in an adjusted civil penalty of $1,677.

Change to Maximum Penalty Under 49 U.S.C. 32506(a) (49 CFR 578.6(c))

    The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (Cost Savings
Act), Pub. L. 92-513, 86 Stat. 953, (1972), established a civil penalty
of $1,000 for each violation of a bumper standard established pursuant
to the Cost Savings Act. Applying the multiplier for the increase in
CPI-U for 1972 in Table A of the February 24, 2016 memorandum (5.62265)
results in an adjusted civil penalty of $5,623. Since this would result
in an increase to the current civil penalty of greater than 150
percent, the adjusted civil penalty is $2,750 (Current penalty $1,100 x
2.5).
    The Cost Savings Act also established a maximum civil penalty of
$800,000 for a related series of violations of the bumper standards
established pursuant to the Act. Applying the multiplier for the
increase in CPI-U for 1972 in Table A of the February 24, 2016
memorandum (5.62265) results in an adjusted civil penalty of
$4,498,120. Since this would result in an increase to the current civil
penalty of greater than 150 percent, the adjusted civil penalty is
$3,062,500 (Current penalty $1,225,000 x 2.5).

Change to Penalties Under the Consumer Information Provisions (49 CFR
578.6(d)(1))

    The Cost Savings Act established a civil penalty of $1,000 for each
violation of 49 U.S.C. 32308(a) related to providing information on
crashworthiness and damage susceptibility. Applying the multiplier for
the increase in CPI-U for 1972 in Table A of the February 24, 2016
memorandum (5.62265) results in an adjusted civil penalty of $5,623.
Since this would result in an increase to the current civil penalty of
greater than 150 percent, the adjusted civil penalty is $2,750 (Current
penalty $1,100 x 2.5). The Cost Savings established a maximum civil
penalty of $400,000 for a series of related violations of 49 U.S.C.
32308(a). Applying the multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 1972 in
Table A of the February 24, 2016 memorandum (5.62265) results in an
adjusted civil penalty of $2,249,060. Since this would result in an
increase to the current civil penalty of greater than 150 percent, the
adjusted civil penalty is $1,500,000 (Current penalty $600,000 x 2.5).

Change to Penalties Under the Tire Consumer Information Provisions (49
CFR 578.6(d)(2))

    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-140,
121 Stat. 1507 (2007) established a civil penalty of $50,000 for each
violation related to the tire information fuel efficiency information
program under 49 U.S.C. 32304A. Applying the multiplier for the
increase in CPI-U for 2007 in Table A of the February 24, 2016
memorandum (1.13833) results in an adjusted civil penalty of $56,917.

Change to Penalties Under the Country of Origin Content Labeling
Provisions (49 CFR 578.6(d)(2))

    The American Automobile Labeling Act, Pub L. 102-388, Sec.  210,
106 Stat. 1556 (1992), established a civil penalty of $1,000 for
willfully failing to affix, or failing to maintain, the label required
by the Act. Applying the multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 1992
in Table A of the February 24, 2016 memorandum (1.67728) results in an
adjusted civil penalty of $1,677.

Change to Penalties Under the Odometer Tampering and Disclosure
Provisions (49 CFR 578.6(f))

    MAP-21 adjusted the civil penalty for each violation of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 327 or a regulation issued thereunder related to odometer
tampering and disclosure to $10,000 per violation. Applying the
multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 2012 in Table A of the
February 24, 2016 memorandum (1.02819) results in an adjusted civil
penalty of $10,282. MAP-21 established a maximum civil penalty of
$1,000,000 for a related series of violations of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327
or a regulation issued thereunder. Applying the multiplier for the
increase in CPI-U for 2012 results in an adjusted civil penalty of
$1,028,190 for a related series of violations.
    MAP-21 also adjusted the civil penalty for violations of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 327 or a regulation issued thereunder with intent to defraud to
$10,000 per violation. Applying the multiplier for the increase in CPI-
U for 2012 results in an adjusted civil penalty of $10,282.

Change to Penalties Under the Vehicle Theft Protection Provisions (49
CFR 578.6(g))

    The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 (Vehicle Theft
Act), Public Law 98-547, Sec.  608, 98 Stat. 2762 (1984), established a
civil penalty of $1,000 for each violation of 49 U.S.C. 33114(a)(1)-
(4). Applying the multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 1984 in
Table A of the February 24, 2016 memorandum (2.25867) results in an
adjusted civil penalty of $2,259. The Vehicle Theft Act also
established a maximum penalty of $250,000 for a related series of
violations of 49 U.S.C. 33114(a)(1)-(4). Applying the multiplier for
the increase in CPI-U for 1984 results in an adjusted civil penalty of
$564,668.
    The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 established a civil penalty of
$100,000 per day for violations of the Anti Car Theft Act related to
operation of a chop shop. Applying the multiplier for the increase in
CPI-U for 1992 in Table A of the February 24, 2016 memorandum (1.67728)
results in an adjusted civil penalty of $167,728.

Change to Penalties Under the Automobile Fuel Economy Provisions (49
CFR 578.6(g))

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, Public Law
94-163, Sec.  508, 89 Stat. 912 (1975), established a civil penalty of
$10,000 for each violation of 49 U.S.C. 32911(a). Applying the
multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 1975 in Table A of the
February 24, 2016 memorandum (4.3322) results in an adjusted civil
penalty of $43,322. Since this would result in an increase to the
current civil penalty of greater than 150 percent, the adjusted civil
penalty is $40,000 (Current penalty $16,000 x 2.5).
    EPCA also established a civil penalty of $5 multiplied by each .1
of a mile a gallon by which the applicable average fuel economy
standard under that section exceeds the average fuel economy for
automobiles to which the standard applies manufactured by the
manufacturer during the model year, multiplied by the number of those
automobile and reduced by the credits available to the manufacturer.
Applying the multiplier for the increase in CPI-U for 1975 results in
an adjusted civil penalty of $22. Since this would result in an
increase to the current civil penalty of greater than 150 percent, the
adjusted civil penalty is $14 (Current penalty $5.50 x 2.5).
    In 1978 Congress amended EPCA, Public Law 95-619, 402, 92 Stat.
3255 (Nov. 9, 1978) to allow the Secretary of Transportation to
establish a new civil penalty for each .1 of a mile a gallon by which
the applicable average fuel economy standard under EPCA exceeds the
average fuel economy for automobiles to which the standard applies
manufactured by the manufacturer during the model year. These
amendments, which are codified in 49 U.S.C. 32912(c), state that the
new civil penalty cannot be more than $10. Applying the multiplier for
the increase in CPI-U for 1978 in Table A of the February 24, 2016
memorandum (3.54453) to the $10 maximum penalty the Secretary is
permitted to establish under 49 U.S.C. 32912(c) results in an adjusted
civil penalty of $35. Since this would result in an increase of greater
than 150 percent, the adjusted maximum civil penalty that the Secretary
is permitted to establish under 49 U.S.C. 32912(c) is $25 (Current
maximum penalty $10 x 2.5). Because the new maximum penalty that the
Secretary is permitted to establish under 49 U.S.C. 32912(c) is $25,
the new adjusted civil penalty in 49 CFR 578.6(h)(2) of $14 does not
exceed the maximum penalty that the Secretary is permitted to impose.

Change to Penalties Under the Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicle Fuel
Efficiency Program (49 CFR 578.6(i))

    In 2011, the agency established a maximum penalty of $37,500 per
vehicle or engine for violations of 49 CFR 535. Applying the multiplier
for the increase in CPI-U for 2011 in Table A of the February 24, 2016
memorandum (1.05042) results in an adjusted civil penalty of $39,391.

III. Codification of Increases to NHTSA's Civil Penalty Authority in
the FAST Act

    On December 4, 2015, the FAST Act, Public Law 114-94, was signed
into law. Section 24110 of the FAST Act

increased the maximum civil penalty that NHTSA may collect for each
violation of the Safety Act under 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1) and 49 U.S.C.
30165(a)(3) to $21,000 per violation (previously $7,000) and the
maximum amount of civil penalties that NHTSA can collect for a related
series of violations to $105 million (previously $35 million). In order
for these increases to become effective, the Secretary of
Transportation was required to certify to Congress that NHTSA has
issued the final rule required by Section 31203 of MAP-21. Section
31203 required NHTSA to provide an interpretation of civil penalty
factors in 49 U.S.C. 30165 for NHTSA to consider in determining the
amount of penalty or compromise for violations of the Safety Act. Pub.
L. 112-141, Sec.  31203, 126 Stat. 758 (2012). The increases in maximum
civil penalties in Section 24110 of the FAST Act became effective the
date of the Secretary's certification.
    NHTSA issued the final rule required by Section 31203 of MAP-21 on
February 24, 2016. On March 17, 2016, the Secretary certified to
Congress by letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and to the Chairman
and Ranking Member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that
NHTSA had issued the Final Rule. On March 22, 2016, the Office of the
Secretary of Transportation published a notice in the Federal Register
notifying the public that the increase was in effect.\2\ NHTSA is
codifying these increases in this interm final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 81 FR 15413.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Public Comment

    NHTSA is promulgating this interim final rule to ensure that the
amount of civil penalties contained in 49 CFR 578.6 reflect the
statutorily mandated ranges as adjusted for inflation. Pursuant to the
2015 Act, NHTSA is required to promulgate a ``catch-up adjustment''
through an interim final rule. Pursuant to the 2015 Act and 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), NHTSA finds that good cause exists for immediate
implementation of this interim final rule without prior notice and
comment because it would be impracticable to delay publication of this
rule for notice and comment and because public comment is unnecessary.
By operation of the Act, NHTSA must publish the catch-up adjustment by
July 1, 2016. Additionally, the 2015 Act provides a clear formula for
adjustment of the civil penalties, leaving the agency little room for
discretion. Furthermore, the increases in NHTSA's civil penalty
authority authorized by the FAST Act are already in effect and the
amendments merely update 49 CFR 578.6 to reflect the new statutory
civil penalty. For these reasons, NHTSA finds that notice and comment
would be impracticable and is unnecessary in this situation.

V. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under
Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking
document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866 or Executive
Order 13563. This action is limited to the adoption of adjustments of
civil penalties under statutes that the agency enforces, and has been
determined to be not ``significant'' under the Department of
Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and the policies of
the Office of Management and Budget. Because this rulemaking does not
change the number of entities that are subject to civil penalties, the
impacts are limited. Furthermore, excluding the penalties in 49 CFR
578.6(h)(2) for violations of Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards,
this final rule does not establish civil penalty amounts that NHTSA is
required to seek.
    We also do not expect the increase in the civil penalty amount in
49 CFR 578.6(h)(2) to be economically significant. Over the last five
model years, NHTSA has collected an average of $20 million per model
year in civil penalties under 49 CFR 578.6(h)(2). Therefore, increasing
the current civil penalty amount by 150 percent would not result in an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
    Furthermore, NHTSA contends that the economic effects of increasing
the civil penalty in 49 CFR 578.6(h)(2) are not directly proportional
to the increase in the amount of civil penalty. Manufacturers could
pursue several strategies to avoid liability for civil penalties under
49 CFR 578.6(h)(2), including purchasing offset credits from other
manufacturers, production and marketing changes to influence the
average fuel economy of vehicles produced by the manufacturer, and
vehicle design changes intended to increase the vehicle's fuel economy.
NHTSA contends that manufacturers will pursue the strategy, or mix on
strategies, that results in the lowest overall cost to the
manufacturer. For this reason the expected economic impacts of this
rule can be expected to be lower than the amount of the increase to the
civil penalty amount in 49 CFR 578.6(h)(2).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    We have also considered the impacts of this rule under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The following provides the factual basis for this certification under 5
U.S.C. 605(b). The amendments almost entirely potentially affect
manufacturers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment.
    The Small Business Administration's regulations define a small
business in part as a business entity ``which operates primarily within
the United States.'' 13 CFR 121.105(a). SBA's size standards were
previously organized according to Standard Industrial Classification
(``SIC'') Codes. SIC Code 336211 ``Motor Vehicle Body Manufacturing''
applied a small business size standard of 1,000 employees or fewer. SBA
now uses size standards based on the North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS''), Subsector 336--Transportation
Equipment Manufacturing, which provides a small business size standard
of 1,000 employees or fewer for automobile manufacturing businesses.
Other motor vehicle-related industries have lower size requirements
that range between 500 and 750 employees.
    For example, according to the SBA coding system, businesses that
manufacture truck trailers, travel trailers/campers, carburetors,
pistons, piston rings, valves, vehicular lighting equipment, motor
vehicle seating/interior trim, and motor vehicle stamping qualify as
small businesses if they employ 500 or fewer employees. Similarly,
businesses that manufacture gasoline engines, engine parts, electrical
and electronic equipment (non-vehicle lighting), motor vehicle
steering/suspension components (excluding springs), motor vehicle brake
systems, transmissions/power train parts, motor vehicle air-
conditioning, and all other motor vehicle parts qualify as small
businesses if they employ 750 or fewer employees. See http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable.pdf for further details.
    Many small businesses are subject to the penalty provisions of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 (Safety Act) and therefore may be affected by the
adjustments made in this rulemaking. For example, based on
comprehensive reporting

pursuant to the early warning reporting (EWR) rule under the Safety
Act, 49 CFR part 579, of the more than 60 light vehicle manufacturers
reporting, over half are small businesses. Also, there are other,
relatively low production vehicle manufacturers that are not subject to
comprehensive EWR reporting. Furthermore, there are about 70 registered
importers. Equipment manufacturers (including importers), entities
selling motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment, and motor vehicle
repair businesses are also subject to penalties under 49 U.S.C. 30165.
    As noted throughout this preamble, this rule will only increase the
penalty amounts that the agency could obtain for violations covered by
49 CFR 578.6. Under the Safety Act, the penalty provision requires the
agency to take into account the size of a business when determining the
appropriate penalty in an individual case. See 49 U.S.C. 30165(b). The
agency would also consider the size of a business under its civil
penalty policy when determining the appropriate civil penalty amount.
See 62 FR 37115 (July 10, 1997) (NHTSA's civil penalty policy under the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (``SBREFA'')). The
penalty adjustments would not affect our civil penalty policy under
SBREFA.
    Since, this regulation does not establish a penalty amount that
NHTSA is required to seek, except for civil penalties under 49 CFR
578.6(h)(2), this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
small businesses. Furthermore, low volume manufacturers can petition
for an exemption from the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards
under 49 CFR part 525. This will lessen the impacts of this rulemaking
on small business by allowing them to avoid liability for penalties
under 49 CFR 578.6(h)(2). Small organizations and governmental
jurisdictions will not be significantly affected as the price of motor
vehicles and equipment ought not change as the result of this rule.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132 requires NHTSA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have
federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, the agency may not issue a
regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, the agency
consults with State and local governments, or the agency consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
    This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The reason
is that this rule will generally apply to motor vehicle and motor
vehicle equipment manufacturers (including importers), entities that
sell motor vehicles and equipment and motor vehicle repair businesses.
Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not
apply.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Public Law 104-4,
requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the cost, benefits
and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal
mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than
$100 million annually. Because this rule will not have a $100 million
effect, no Unfunded Mandates assessment will be prepared.

Executive Order 12778 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rule does not have a retroactive or preemptive effect.
Judicial review of this rule may be obtained pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 702.
That section does not require that a petition for reconsideration be
filed prior to seeking judicial review.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, we state
that there are no requirements for information collection associated
with this rulemaking action.

Privacy Act

    Please note that anyone is able to search the electronic form of
all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted
on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may
review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78), or
you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 578

    Imports, Motor vehicle safety, Motor vehicles, Rubber and rubber
products, Tires, Penalties.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 578 is amended as
set forth below.

PART 578--CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES

0
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 578 is revised to read as
follows:

    Authority: Pub. L. 101-410, Pub. L. 104-134, Pub. L. 109-59,
Pub. L. 114-74, Pub. L. 114-94, 49 U.S.C. 30165, 30170, 30505,
32308, 32309, 32507, 32709, 32710, 32902, 32912, and 33115;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.81, 1.95.

0
2. Section 578.6 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  578.6  Civil penalties for violations of specified provisions of
Title 49 of the United States Code.

    (a) Motor vehicle safety--(1) In general. A person who violates any
of sections 30112, 30115, 30117 through 30122, 30123(a), 30125(c),
30127, or 30141 through 30147 of Title 49 of the United States Code or
a regulation prescribed under any of those sections is liable to the
United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $21,000
for each violation. A separate violation occurs for each motor vehicle
or item of motor vehicle equipment and for each failure or refusal to
allow or perform an act required by any of those sections. The maximum
civil penalty under this paragraph for a related series of violations
is $105,000,000.
    (2) School buses. Notwithstanding paragraph (a)(1) of this section,
a person who:
    (i) Violates section 30112(a)(1) of Title 49 United States Code by
the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce, or importation of a school bus
or school bus equipment (as those terms are defined in 49 U.S.C.
30125(a)); or
    (ii) Violates section 30112(a)(2) of Title 49 United States Code,
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $11,940 for each
violation. A separate violation occurs for each motor vehicle or item
of motor vehicle

equipment and for each failure or refusal to allow or perform an act
required by this section. The maximum penalty under this paragraph for
a related series of violations is $17,909,550.
    (3) Section 30166. A person who violates section 30166 of Title 49
of the United States Code or a regulation prescribed under that section
is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty for
failing or refusing to allow or perform an act required under that
section or regulation. The maximum penalty under this paragraph is
$21,000 per violation per day. The maximum penalty under this paragraph
for a related series of daily violations is $105,000,000.
    (4) False and misleading reports. A person who knowingly and
willfully submits materially false or misleading information to the
Secretary, after certifying the same information as accurate under the
certification process established pursuant to section 30166(o), shall
be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $5,141 per day. The
maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related series of daily
violations is $1,028,190.
    (b) National Automobile Title Information System. An individual or
entity violating 49 U.S.C. Chapter 305 is liable to the United States
Government for a civil penalty of not more than $1,677 for each
violation.
    (c) Bumper standards. (1) A person that violates 49 U.S.C. 32506(a)
is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not
more than $2,750 for each violation. A separate violation occurs for
each passenger motor vehicle or item of passenger motor vehicle
equipment involved in a violation of 49 U.S.C. 32506(a)(1) or (4)--
    (i) That does not comply with a standard prescribed under 49 U.S.C.
32502, or
    (ii) For which a certificate is not provided, or for which a false
or misleading certificate is provided, under 49 U.S.C. 32504.
    (2) The maximum civil penalty under this paragraph (c) for a
related series of violations is $3,062,500.
    (d) Consumer information--(1) Crash-worthiness and damage
susceptibility. A person who violates 49 U.S.C. 32308(a), regarding
crashworthiness and damage susceptibility, is liable to the United
States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $2,750 for each
violation. Each failure to provide information or comply with a
regulation in violation of 49 U.S.C. 32308(a) is a separate violation.
The maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related series of
violations is $1,500,000.
    (2) Consumer tire information. Any person who fails to comply with
the national tire fuel efficiency program under 49 U.S.C. 32304A is
liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more
than $56,917 for each violation.
    (e) Country of origin content labeling. A manufacturer of a
passenger motor vehicle distributed in commerce for sale in the United
States that willfully fails to attach the label required under 49
U.S.C. 32304 to a new passenger motor vehicle that the manufacturer
manufactures or imports, or a dealer that fails to maintain that label
as required under 49 U.S.C. 32304, is liable to the United States
Government for a civil penalty of not more than $1,677 for each
violation. Each failure to attach or maintain that label for each
vehicle is a separate violation.
    (f) Odometer tampering and disclosure. (1) A person that violates
49 U.S.C. Chapter 327 or a regulation prescribed or order issued
thereunder is liable to the United States Government for a civil
penalty of not more than $10,281 for each violation. A separate
violation occurs for each motor vehicle or device involved in the
violation. The maximum civil penalty under this paragraph for a related
series of violations is $1,028,190.
    (2) A person that violates 49 U.S.C. Chapter 327 or a regulation
prescribed or order issued thereunder, with intent to defraud, is
liable for three times the actual damages or $10,281, whichever is
greater.
    (g) Vehicle theft protection. (1) A person that violates 49 U.S.C.
33114(a)(1)-(4) is liable to the United States Government for a civil
penalty of not more than $2,259 for each violation. The failure of more
than one part of a single motor vehicle to conform to an applicable
standard under 49 U.S.C. 33102 or 33103 is only a single violation. The
maximum penalty under this paragraph for a related series of violations
is $564,668.
    (2) A person that violates 49 U.S.C. 33114(a)(5) is liable to the
United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than $167,728
a day for each violation.
    (h) Automobile fuel economy. (1) A person that violates 49 U.S.C.
32911(a) is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty
of not more than $40,000 for each violation. A separate violation
occurs for each day the violation continues.
    (2) Except as provided in 49 U.S.C. 32912(c), a manufacturer that
violates a standard prescribed for a model year under 49 U.S.C. 32902
is liable to the United States Government for a civil penalty of $14
multiplied by each .1 of a mile a gallon by which the applicable
average fuel economy standard under that section exceeds the average
fuel economy--
    (i) Calculated under 49 U.S.C. 32904(a)(1)(A) or (B) for
automobiles to which the standard applies manufactured by the
manufacturer during the model year;
    (ii) Multiplied by the number of those automobiles; and
    (iii) Reduced by the credits available to the manufacturer under 49
U.S.C. 32903 for the model year.
    (i) Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle fuel efficiency. The maximum
civil penalty for a violation of the fuel consumption standards of 49
CFR part 535 is not more than $39,391 per vehicle or engine. The
maximum civil penalty for a related series of violations shall be
determined by multiplying $39,391 times the vehicle or engine
production volume for the model year in question within the regulatory
averaging set.

    Issued on: June 22, 2016.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-15800 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 237 (Tuesday, December 10, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74167-74168]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29444]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0039]

Portable Fire Extinguishers (Annual Maintenance Certification
Record); Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB)
Approval of the Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the
information collection requirements contained in the Portable Fire
Extinguishers Standard (Annual Maintenance Certification Record) (29
CFR 1910.157(e)(3)).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent or received) by
February 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2010-0039, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number for the Information Collection Request (ICR) (OSHA-
2010-0039). All comments, including any personal information you
provide, are placed in the public docket without change, and may be
made available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further
information on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation''
heading in the section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other materials in the
docket, go to http://regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at the
address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not
publically available to read or download from the Web site. All
submissions, including copyrighted material, are available for
inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may contact Theda
Kenney at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen or Theda Kenney, Directorate
of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3909,
200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accord with the paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et. seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary
or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Paragraph (e)(3) of the Standard specifies that employers must
subject each portable fire extinguisher to an annual maintenance
inspection and

record the date of the inspection. In addition, this provision requires
employers to retain the inspection record for one year after the last
entry or for the life of the shell, whichever is less, and to make the
record available to OSHA on request. This recordkeeping requirement
assures employees and Agency compliance officers that portable fire
extinguishers located in the workplace will operate normally in case of
fire; in addition, this requirement provides evidence to OSHA
compliance officers during an inspection that the employer performed
the required maintenance checks on the portable fire extinguishers.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Portable Fire Extinguishers
Standard (Annual Maintenance Certification Record) (29 CFR
1910.157(e)(3)). OSHA is proposing to increase the burden hours in the
currently approved information collection request from 67,995 to 69,038
(a total increase of 1,043 hours). This increase is due to updated data
showing an increase in the number of fire extinguishers affected by the
Standard. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response
to this notice and will include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Portable Fire Extinguishers (Annual Maintenance
Certification Record (29 CFR 1910.157(e)(3)).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0238.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Responses: 1,380,750
    Frequency of Responses: On occasion
    Average Time per Response: Approximately 30 minutes (.50 hour) to
perform and record the required maintenance inspection.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 69,038
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $20,193,469

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other materials must identify the Agency
name and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-
0039). You may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document
files electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in
reference to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit
them to the OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled
ADDRESSES). The additional materials must clearly identify your
electronic comments by your name, date, and the docket number so the
Agency can attach them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions comments about submitting
personal information such as social security numbers and date of birth.
Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
index, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publically
available to read or download through this Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and access the docket
is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA
Docket Office for information about materials not available through the
Web site, and for assistance in using the Internet to locate docket
submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et. seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-
2012 (77 FR 3912).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on December 5, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2013-29444 Filed 12-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: August 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 150)]
[Notices]
[Page 45268-45269]
[DOCID:fr04au08-90]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Availability of Draft Alternatives Working Paper for the Proposed
Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport, Las Vegas, Clark County, NV

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Draft Alternatives Working Paper.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in cooperation with
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is issuing this notice to advise
the public the Draft Alternatives Working Paper for the Draft EIS will
be made available for public comment pursuant to section 304 of the
Vision 100 Century of Aviation Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-176) [49 U.S.C.
47171(I)]. The Draft Alternatives Working Paper has been prepared for
the construction and operation of the proposed Southern Nevada
Supplemental Airport which lies partially within the base floodplain of
a portion of Roach Dry Lake located along Interstate Highway 15 about
30 miles south of Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada. FAA and BLM are
seeking comments on the Draft Alternatives Working Paper.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David B. Kessler, AICP, Project
Manager, Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport EIS, AWP-610.1, Airports
Division, Federal Aviation Administration, Western-Pacific Region, P.O.
Box 92007, Los Angeles, California 90009-2007, Telephone: 310/725-3615.
Comments on the draft Alternatives Working Paper should be submitted to
the address above and must be received no later than 5 p.m. Pacific
Standard Time, Friday, October 3, 2008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in
cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is preparing a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Southern Nevada
Supplemental Airport (SNSA) pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969. The need to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is based on the procedures described in FAA Order
1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, FAA Order
5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing
Instructions for Airport Actions, and BLM NEPA Handbook H-1790-1.
Further, the FAA and BLM are preparing this EIS jointly pursuant to the
Ivanpah Valley Airport Lands Transfer Act of 2000, (Pub. L. 106-362).
Clark County proposes to build the airport along Interstate Highway 15
north of the Nevada/California border about 30 miles south of Las
Vegas, between Primm and Jean in Clark County, Nevada. The purpose of
the proposed airport is to provide additional capacity to accommodate
the forecasted growth in air carrier aircraft operations and aviation
passenger demand into the Las Vegas area. This airport would supplement
existing capacity at McCarran International Airport (LAS).
    FAA and BLM are making the Draft Alternatives Working Paper
available to the public and governmental agencies for review and
comment. This working paper contains information that the FAA and BLM
will include into the Alternatives Section of the Draft EIS. FAA and
BLM have developed the Alternatives Working Paper based on information
disclosed in the Purpose and Need Working Paper that was made available
to the public on January 25, 2008 (73 FR 4666-4667). The following
general candidate alternative topics are included in the Draft
Alternatives Working Paper: No Action, Other Modes of Transportation,
Air Traffic Demand Management Strategies, Use of Airfield and Airspace
Technologies, Expansion of McCarran International Airport, Use of Other
Existing Airports in the Region, and Develop a New Airport. Several of
these candidate alternatives have multiple sub-candidates that are
evaluated in the Draft Alternatives Working Paper.
    Pursuant to U.S. Department of Transportation Order 5650.2,
Floodplain Management and Protection, the FAA is also notifying the
public that Clark County's proposed action may create a significant
encroachment into the base floodplain for Roach Dry Lake. Roach Dry
Lake is located east of Interstate 15 north of Primm and South of Jean,
Nevada. Roach Dry Lake is the terminus of various unnamed ephemeral and
semi-permanent streams. Roach Dry Lake also receives storm-related
surface sheet flow from alluvial fans and surrounding mountainous
areas. Clark County's proposed action would modify the shape of the dry
lake bed and its margin terrace to accommodate the construction of the
proposed airport. The proposed airport would be constructed on an
earthen platform that would elevate the new airport above the water
level that occurs in the dry lake following a storm event. This earthen
platform may affect the natural and beneficial floodplain value of
Roach Dry Lake by altering the total surface area usable for ground
water infiltration and recharge. FAA and BLM expect the function of the
Roach Dry Lake playa to be more clearly defined following completion of
the Affected Environment section of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement. Clark County is developing a flash flood/drainage plan to
manage storm water runoff into Roach Dry Lake that will be evaluated in
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Clark County is seeking
federal approval of the Airport Layout Plan for the proposed new
airport. FAA anticipates Clark County seeking federal funding
assistance for the proposal as well. However, FAA has not received an
application for federal assistance to construct the proposed new
airport from Clark County.
    The Draft Alternatives Working Paper also identifies other
candidate alternatives that may have encroachments into base
floodplains. FAA and BLM will consider all comments received for the
purpose of developing future documents supporting the Draft EIS. FAA
and BLM will accept comments on the Draft Alternatives Working Paper
until 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, Friday, October 3, 2008.
    Copies of the Draft Alternatives Working Paper are available for
public review at the following locations during normal business hours:
    U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
Western-Pacific Region, Office of the Airports Division, 15000 Aviation
Boulevard, Hawthorne, California 90261.
    U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration,
National Headquarters, Office of Airports, Planning and Environmental
Needs Division, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas Field Office, 4701 North
Torrey Pines, Las Vegas, Nevada 89130.
    The document is also available for public review at the following
libraries and other locations and at the following Web site: http://
www.snvairporteis.com:
Boulder City Public Library, 701 Adams Boulevard, Boulder City, Nevada
89005.

Gibson Library, 280 South Water Street, Henderson, Nevada 89015-7288.
Pittman Library, 1608 Moser Drive, Henderson, Nevada 89015-4323.
Paseo Verde Library, 280 South Green Valley Parkway, Henderson, Nevada
89012-2301.
Malcolm Library, 2960 Sunridge Heights Parkway, Henderson, Nevada
89052.
Clark County Law Library, 309 South 3rd Street, Suite 400, Las Vegas,
Nevada 89155.
Lied Library--UNLV, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada 89104.
UNLV Libraries Government Publications, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Las
Vegas, Nevada 89101.
Nevada State Library and Archives, 716 N. Carson Street, Suite B,
Carson City, Nevada 89701.
North Las Vegas Library District, 2300 Civic Center Drive, North Las
Vegas, Nevada 89030-5839.
Aliante Branch Library, 2400 Deer Springs Way, North Las Vegas, Nevada
89084.
Pahrump Community Library District, 701 East Street, Pahrump, Nevada
89048-0578.
White Pine County Library, 950 Campton Street, Ely, Nevada 89301-1965.
Clark County Library, 1401 East Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89119-
5256.
Goodsprings Library, 365 West San Pedro Avenue, Goodsprings, Nevada
89019-0667.
Lincoln County Library, 63 Main Street, P.O. Box 330, Pioche, Nevada
89043-0330.
Alamo Branch Library, 100 South First West, P.O. Box 239, Alamo, Nevada
89001-0239.
Caliente Branch Library, 100 Depot Avenue, P.O. Box 306, Caliente,
Nevada 89008-0306.
Searchlight Library, 200 Michael Wendal Way, Searchlight, Nevada 89046.
Sandy Valley Library, 650 W. Quartz Avenue, Sandy Valley, Nevada 89019.
Mt. Charleston Library, 1252 Aspen Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89124.
Moapa Valley Library, 350 N. Moapa Valley Blvd., Overton, Nevada 89040.
Laughlin Library, 2840 S. Needles Hwy., Laughlin, Nevada 89020.
Blue Diamond Library, 14 Cottonwood Drive, Blue Diamond, Nevada 89004.
Moapa Town Library, 1340 E. Highway 168, Moapa, Nevada 89025.
Indian Springs Library, 715 Gretta Lane, Indian Springs, Nevada 89018.
Bunkerville Library, 150 W. Virgin Street, Bunkerville, Nevada 89007.
Mesquite Library, 121 W. First St., Mesquite, Nevada 89027.
Enterprise Library, 25 E. Shelbourne Way, Las Vegas, Nevada 89123.
Green Valley Library, 2797 N. Green Valley Parkway, Henderson, Nevada
89014.
Las Vegas Library, 833 Las Vegas Blvd. North, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101.
Meadows Library, 300 W. Boston Ave., Las Vegas, Nevada 89102.
Rainbow Library, 3150 N. Buffalo Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89128.
Sahara West Library, 9600 W. Sahara Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89177.
Spring Valley Library, 4280 S. Jones Blvd, Las Vegas, Nevada 89103.
Sunrise Library, 5400 Harris Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89110.
Summerlin Library, 1771 Inner Circle Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89134.
West Charleston Library, 6301 W. Charleston Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada
89146.
West Las Vegas Library, 951 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Las Vegas, Nevada
89106.
Whitney Library, 5175 E. Tropicana Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada 89106.
University of Nevada Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway Box 457001,
Building LLB 1173, MS 7033, Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-7001.
William S. Boyd School of Law, UNLV, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 451003,
Las Vegas, Nevada 89154-1003.
Nevada State College, 1125 Nevada State Drive, Henderson, Nevada 89015.

    The Draft Alternatives Working Paper will be available for public
comment for 30 days. Written comments on the Draft Alternatives Working
Paper should be submitted to the address above under the heading FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and must be received no later than 5 p.m.
Pacific Standard Time, Friday, October 3, 2008.

    Issued in Hawthorne, California on July 29, 2008.
Mark A. McClardy,
Manager, Airports Division, Western--Pacific Region, AWP-600.
[FR Doc. E8-17897 Filed 8-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71153-71156]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24836]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79073; File No. SR-Phlx-2016-97]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Delete Outdated or Unnecessary Rule Language

October 7, 2016.
    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 September 27, 2016, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below,
which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to delete outdated or unnecessary rule
language contained in Rule 1020, Registration and Functions of Options
Specialists, section (b) and Commentary .01 through .06.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqphlx.cchwallstreet.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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    Exchange Rule 1020 contains provisions relating to registration and
functions of options specialists.\3\ Rule 1020's provisions were
initially adopted in the 1970s, in the early days of exchange trading
of options. As explained below, the rule reflects the trading context
in which it was adopted. Various provisions of the rule are
consequently very outdated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``specialist'' is an Exchange member who is registered as
an options specialist pursuant to Exchange Rule 1020(a). Specialists
are subject to quoting and registration obligations set forth in
Rules 1014(b), 1020, and 1080.02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is therefore proposing to delete obsolete and
unnecessary language from section (b) and from Commentary .01 through
Commentary

.06 of Rule 1020 pertaining to the obligations of specialists. The
Exchange proposes to delete the language in question in order to
prevent any confusion that may result from obsolete provisions, to
eliminate unnecessary language, and to ensure that the rulebook
accurately reflects specialists' obligations in the context of the
manner in which trading is conducted today.
Section (b)
    Rule 1020 provides that, as a condition of being registered as a
specialist in one or more options, a member has an obligation to assist
in the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. The rule currently
provides that this obligation exists for a specialist ``in addition to
the execution of orders entrusted him in such options.'' The Exchange
is deleting the language regarding execution of entrusted orders.
Specialists no longer manually handle or execute others' orders due to
the Exchange's migration to a new electronic trading system (``Phlx XL
II'') in 2009.\4\ The Phlx XL II enhancements were designed to improve
the execution quality for its Phlx users by improving a number of
processes, including the opening process, the order handling process
and the execution of orders process. As a consequence of this migration
a manual book no longer exists and specialists no longer enter manual
orders entrusted to them onto the electronic limit order book.\5\
Specialists no longer handle any agency orders whatsoever in their role
as specialists. The Exchange proposes to delete the language in
question in order to prevent any confusion that may result from this
obsolete provision and to ensure that the rulebook accurately reflects
member obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In May 2009, the Exchange enhanced the options trading
system and adopted corresponding rules referring to it as ``Phlx XL
II.'' See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28, 2009),
74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32). Thereafter, the
Exchange submitted a number of filings updating various rules and
deleting obsolete provisions. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 61397 (January 22, 2010), 75 FR 4893 (January 29, 2010) (SR-
Phlx-2010-07); 63036 (October 4, 2010), 75 FR 62621 (October 12,
2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-131); and 67469 (July 19, 2012), 77 FR 43633
(July 25, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-92).
    \5\ Specifically, the Exchange has stated that no orders will be
executed, and therefore handled, manually in Phlx XL II. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59721 (April 7, 2009), 74 FR
17245 (April 14, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32) (Notice of Filing of
Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Exchange's Enhanced Electronic
Trading Platform for Options, Phlx XL II at 17258). Rules governing
the obligations of Specialists, such as quoting and registration
obligations, still exist. See, e.g., Rules 1014(b) and 1020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commentary .01
    Commentary .01 applies to transactions of a specialist for his own
account that establish or increase a position. It provides that in
``effecting transactions'' for his own account for the purpose of
establishing or increasing a position, a specialist is to effect such
transactions in a reasonable and orderly manner in relation to the
condition of the general market, the market in the particular option
and the adequacy of his position to the immediate and reasonably
anticipated needs of the options market. It provides that the following
types of transactions to establish or increase a position are not to be
effected except when they are reasonably necessary to render the
specialist's position adequate to such needs: (a) A purchase at a price
above the last sale in the same trading session; (b) the purchase of
all or substantially all the options offered on the book at a price
equal to the last sale, when the option so offered represents all or
substantially all the options offered in the market; and when a
substantial amount of an option is offered at a price equal to the last
sale price, the purchase of more than 50% of all the options offered at
the last sale price; (c) the supplying of all or substantially all the
options bid for on the book at a price equal to the last sale, when the
option so bid for represents all or substantially all the options bid
for in the market; and when a substantial amount of the options bid for
at a price equal to the last sale price, the supplying of more than 50%
of all the options bid for at the last sale price; (d) failing to re-
offer or re-bid where necessary after effecting transactions described
in (a), (b), or (c). The rule permits transactions of these types to be
effected, however, with the approval of an Options Exchange Official or
in relatively inactive markets where they are an essential part of a
proper course of dealings and where the amount of an option involved
and the price change, if any, are normal in relation to the market.
    The Exchange proposes to delete the last sentence of Commentary
.01, and sections (a) through (d) of Commentary .01, because a
specialist is unable to comply with its requirements given the way
trading is conducted today in the PHLX XL trading system. Specialists
today only rarely ``effect transactions'' in the sense of matching bids
and offers to cause an execution to occur. Rather, they submit bids and
offers to be matched. Although a specialist may ``effect transactions''
with a market maker on the Exchange's trading floor, the vast majority
of transactions are executed electronically by the trading system and
the specialist may be unable to determine the price of the last sale
which would be required to comply with the language being deleted.
Thus, for example, given electronic quoting and the absence of
specialist control over the book, there is no way a specialist can
guarantee that a purchase is at a price above the last sale in the same
trading session. Because he will not know the price at which trading
will occur, he cannot comply with Commentary .01 (a)--(d).
    Although these tick-based rules may have been appropriate for and
worked well in a market where substantially all trading was conducted
manually, at a pace that enabled individuals to discern ``tick''
changes easily and which tolerated the time it took to call an Options
Exchange Official into the crowd to approve a particular specialist's
transaction, they are inappropriate now where trading is substantially
electronic and the speed and frequency of executions and quote changes
preclude individuals from being able to accurate track ``ticks'' or
stop trading to allow for Options Exchange Official involvement.\6\ The
rules of the NASDAQ Options Market (``NOM'') do not contain comparable
provisions with respect to market makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54860 (December 1,
2006), 71 FR 71221 (December 8, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-76) in which the
New York Stock Exchange advanced this explanation in support of
proposed changes to its specialist stabilization rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commentary .02
    Commentary .02 applies to transactions of a specialist for his own
account that liquidate or decrease his position in an option in which
he is registered. It provides that such transactions are to be
``effected'' in a reasonable and orderly manner in relation to the
condition of the general market, the market in the particular option
and the adequacy of the specialist's positions to the immediate and
reasonably anticipated needs of the options market. It also provides
that, in this connection, unless he has the prior approval of an
Options Exchange Official, he should avoid: (a) Liquidation of all or
substantially all of a position by selling options at prices below the
last different price or by purchasing options at prices above the last
different price unless such transactions are reasonably necessary in
relation to the specialist's overall position in the options in which
he is registered; (b) failing to maintain a fair and orderly market
during liquidations;

or (c) failing to re-enter the market where necessary, after effecting
transactions described in (a) above.
    The Exchange proposes to delete part of the last sentence of
Commentary .02 as well as sections (a) through (c) of Commentary .02.
The Exchange believes that while these rules may have made sense when
they were adopted, changes in market structure and technology in the
succeeding decades, such as the shift to trading in penny increments,
dispersion of order flow to multiple competing market centers,
consolidation and availability of market data, and enhancements in
trading, communications and surveillance technology have made these
rules anticompetitive anachronisms.
    As discussed above, given the way trading is conducted today in the
PHLX XL trading system, a specialist may be unable to determine the
``last different price'' as required to comply with section (a).
Section (b) is being deleted as redundant of Rule 1020(b) which already
contains the ``fair and orderly'' requirement. Section (c) is being
deleted because it depends on Section (a) which is being deleted as
discussed above. Finally, the NOM rules do not contain comparable
provisions with respect to market makers.\7\ The language is therefore
operationally obsolete, as explained above. Moreover, having clear and
up-to-date rules should promote just and equitable principles of trade
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange believes that the fact that NOM does not have a
trading floor is irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commentary .03
    Commentary .03 provides that a specialist's quotation, made for his
own account, should be such that a transaction effected at his quoted
price or within the quoted spread, whether having the effect of
reducing or increasing the specialist's position, would bear a proper
relation to preceding transactions and anticipated succeeding
transactions. The Exchange proposes to delete Commentary .03 because
given the speed of trading that occurs today on the Phlx XL trading
system, a specialist may not have knowledge of the preceding
transactions to which his quotation would relate, much less any
anticipated succeeding transactions. Without affecting his liquidity,
the specialist cannot possibly look at every single transaction, nor
can he know how the transactions relate to one another. Prior to the
advent of electronic trading, a specialist would announce his quote
verbally, which was a very slow process. Today, a specialist would not
be able to adjust quotes as needed to comply with Commentary .03 before
the quotes are accessed.
    The NOM rules do not contain comparable provisions with respect to
market makers. The language is an unnecessary and anticompetitive
burden on Phlx specialists, because market makers on NOM which fulfill
a comparable role to Phlx specialists are not subject to a comparable
requirement.
Commentary .04
    Commentary .04 applies to opening or reopening an option. It
provides that a specialist should avoid participating as a dealer in
opening or reopening an option in such a manner as to reverse the
balance of public supply and demand as reflected by market and limited
price orders at or near the price of the previous close or halt, unless
the condition of the general market or the specialist's position in
light of the reasonably anticipated needs of the market make it
advisable to do so, or unless the specialist has obtained the prior
approval of an Options Exchange Official to do so. The rule provides
that he may, however, buy or sell an option as a dealer to minimize the
disparity between supply and demand at an opening or reopening. The
Exchange proposes to delete Commentary .04 in its entirety because the
Specialist no longer manually opens options classes. Rather, the PHLX
XL trading system handles the opening and re-opening of options in
accordance with Phlx Rule 1017. While the Specialist is required to
provide a quote, he or she is no more involved in resolving imbalances
than any other market maker. All aspects of the opening are done
automatically by the system.
Commentary .05
    Commentary .05 prohibits a member acting as a specialist from
effecting transactions for the purpose of adjusting a LIFO inventory in
an option in which he is so acting except as a part of a course of
dealings reasonably necessary to assist in the maintenance of a fair
and orderly market. This rule largely tracks former NYSE rule 104.13
which was designed to prevent year-end purchases or sales for the
purpose of obtaining tax advantages under the LIFO system of valuing
inventory.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 7432, 29 FR 13777
(October 6, 1964).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to delete Commentary .05 in its entirety
because the Exchange believes it is unnecessary. The NOM rules do not
contain a comparable provision for market makers. Additionally, the
Exchange was unable to locate a comparable Chicago Board Options
Exchange (``CBOE'') rule. The language is an unnecessary and
anticompetitive burden on Phlx specialists, because market makers on
NOM which fulfill a comparable role to Phlx specialists are not subject
to a comparable requirement.
Commentary .06
    Commentary .06 provides that under certain circumstances a
specialist may assign options in which he is registered to an
investment account. Purchases creating or adding to a position in an
investment account may not be made unless reasonably necessary to
permit the specialist to assist in the maintenance of a fair and
orderly market. The Exchange is deleting this sentence because it
believes it is not necessary. Specialists have their ``specialist
account.'' Any executions on their quotes are placed into their
specialist accounts. While an ``investment account'' may have played a
role in early days of trading, the Exchange is unaware today of what
such an account might consist of or its purpose--consequently, the
Exchange perceives no need to regulate it or fashion rules around it.
    Commentary .06 states that in the maintenance of price continuity
with reasonable depth, it is commonly desirable for a specialist to
supply options to the market, even though he may have to sell short to
do so, to the extent reasonably necessary to meet the needs of the
market. This sentence is being deleted because the Exchange believes
its rules should not include statements of ``desirable'' behavior.
    Finally, Commentary .06 provides that a specialist may not effect a
transfer of options in which he is registered from his dealer account
to an investment account if the transfer would result in creating a
short position in the dealer account. This Exchange is deleting this
sentence because it is unnecessary, for the reasons specified above
relating to investment accounts.
    The NOM rules do not contain provisions comparable to the
provisions of Commentary .06 with respect to its market makers. The
language is an unnecessary and anticompetitive burden on Phlx
specialists, because market makers on NOM which fulfill a comparable
role to Phlx specialists are not subject to comparable requirements.

2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)

of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by deleting unnecessary and obsolete provisions and generally
providing clarity to the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Specifically, the deletion of a portion of the Rule 1020 Section
(b) and Commentary provisions discussed above is consistent with the
Act because this rule language is operationally obsolete, as explained
above; moreover, having clear and up to date rules should promote just
and equitable principles of trade on the Exchange. The proposal should
result in a more accurate and understandable rule book, particularly
for Exchange specialists who no longer operate a book or handle orders
manually. The Exchange's goal with respect to the deletion of language
is to ensure that the rulebook accurate reflects member obligations in
the context of how trading takes place on the Exchange today, which
should protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange's
proposal will also delete unnecessary provisions that, because they are
not present in the NOM rulebook with respect to market makers,
represent an anticompetitive burden on Phlx specialists as discussed
above.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Removing unnecessary regulatory
burdens should enhance a Phlx specialist's ability to compete with
market makers on Phlx and on other exchanges who are not burdened with
similar requirements.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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 (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date 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 shall: (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-Phlx-2016-97 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-Phlx-2016-97. 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 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-Phlx-2016-97, and should be
submitted on or before November 4, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-24836 Filed 10-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P