[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12214-12218]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05560]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82870; File No. SR-CHX-2018-001]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt the Route QCT Cross
Routing Option

March 14, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 6, 2018, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. 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

    CHX proposes to amend the Rules of the Exchange (``CHX Rules'') to
adopt the Route QCT Cross routing option. The text of this proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's website at http://www.chx.com/regulatory-operations/rule-filings/, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to effect the following amendments to the CHX
Rules to adopt the Route QCT \3\ Cross routing option:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57620 (April 4,
2008), 73 FR 19271 (April 4, 2008) (``Modified QCT Exemptive
Order''); see also CHX Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2) defining ``cross
order''; see also CHX Article 1, Rule 2(b)(2)(E) defining
``Qualified Contingent Trade.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Adopt Article 19, Rule 4(a)(1) describing the proposed
``Route QCT Cross'' routing option.
     Amend the definition of ``Routable Order'' under Article
1, Rule 1(oo), the definition of ``cross order'' under Article 1, Rule
2(a)(2) and make various amendments to Article 19 (CHX Routing
Services) to permit the routing of cross orders marked Route QCT Cross.
     Other non-substantive clarifying amendments.
(1) Background
    Currently, Routable Orders submitted to the CHX matching system
(``Matching System'') \4\ for execution are routed away from the
Matching System automatically if a Routing Event \5\ is triggered. All
Routable Orders \6\ are limit orders only, and thus market \7\ and
cross orders \8\ are never routable. Moreover, the Exchange does not
permit orders to be directly routed to an away Trading Center \9\
without initially being submitted to the Matching System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Matching System is part of the Exchange's ``Trading
Facilities,'' as defined under CHX Article 1, Rule 1(z).
    \5\ See CHX Article 19, Rule 3(a)(1)-(5).
    \6\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 1(oo) defining ``Routable Order.''
    \7\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(a)(3) defining ``market order.''
    \8\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2) defining ``cross order.''
    \9\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 1(nn) defining ``Trading Center.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A large percentage of the Exchange's average daily volume (``ADV'')
is attributed to cross orders that are component orders to Qualified
Contingent Trades (``QCT Crosses''). Mechanically, the Matching System
handles QCT Crosses like simple crosses (i.e., cross orders without any
modifiers attached), except that the Matching System permits QCT
Crosses to trade-through protected quotes of away markets as QCT
Crosses are exempt from the trade-through prohibition of Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS.\10\ Therefore, like simple crosses, all QCT Crosses are
handled IOC \11\ and can never rest on the CHX book. Moreover, like
simple crosses, a QCT Cross submitted to the Matching System will be
cancelled back to the order sender as ``blocked'' if a precedent limit
order priced at or better than the QCT Cross is resting on the CHX
book,\12\ except that a QCT Cross priced at the top of the CHX book
(i.e., the best-ranked order on the CHX book pursuant to Article 20,
Rule 8(b)) that qualifies for Cross With Size \13\ handling will be
permitted to execute. However, unlike simple crosses, which may be
submitted by any Participant,\14\ QCT Crosses may only be submitted by
Institutional Brokers (``IBs'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 3.
    \11\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2)
    \12\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2); see also CHX Article 20,
Rule 8(e)(1).
    \13\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(g)(1).
    \14\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 1(s) defining ``Participant.''
    \15\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 2(b)(2)(E); see also CHX Article 1,
Rule 1(n) defining ``Institutional Broker.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the event a QCT Cross is blocked and cancelled, the IB will
usually cause the order to be executed over-the-counter (``OTC''). The
OTC trade would then be reported to a Trade Reporting Facility
(``TRF'') and cleared either through the Exchange's optional away trade
clearing service,\16\ which may only be used by IBs, or another
clearing service. The Exchange assesses a fee for use of the optional
away trade clearing service,\17\ which is identical to the fee for a
QCT Cross executed within the Matching System.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See CHX Article 21, Rule 6.
    \17\ See Section E.7 of the CHX Fee Schedule.
    \18\ See Section E.3 of the CHX Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In recent years, the percentage of the Exchange's average daily
volume (``ADV'') attributed to cross orders has decreased, which has
been offset by an increase in single-sided matching activity.\19\ This
has primarily been driven by enhanced resting liquidity on the CHX
book. Consequently, as the number of orders resting on the CHX book
have increased, and the price of such orders have become more
aggressive, blocked crosses have become more frequent.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In 2014, the percentage of total CHX executed volume
attributed to single-sided orders (``CHX Single-sided Volume'') was
11.03%. In 2015 and 2016, this percentage increased to 17.39% and
19.69%, respectively. In 2017, as of December 1, 2017, CHX Single-
sided Volume decreased to 12.05%, due primarily to the withdrawal of
certain top CHX liquidity providers in late 2016.
    \20\ In 2014, 6.03% of all cross orders submitted to the
Matching System were cancelled back to the order sender. In 2015,
2016 and 2017 (as of December 1, 2017), this percentage increased to
9.72%, 11.47% and 12.81%, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering this trend, the Exchange is now proposing to adopt the
Route QCT Cross routing option, which will permit IBs \21\ to directly
route a QCT Cross to a non-affiliated third-party

broker-dealer designated by the IB (``designated executing broker'')
for execution. The purpose of Route QCT Cross is to provide IBs with a
routing option that will simplify and streamline the OTC execution
process for QCTs,\22\ which will enhance the value of IB registration
with the Exchange. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposal
will facilitate the ability of IBs to execute QCT Crosses in compliance
with the requirements of the Modified QCT Exemptive Order \23\ and CHX
Rules,\24\ which fosters cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in facilitating transactions in securities in furtherance of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The Exchange is proposing to limit use of Route QCT Cross
to IBs to be consistent with the fact that only IBs are currently
permitted to submit QCT Crosses to the Matching System. See CHX
Article 1, Rule 2(b)(2)(E).
    \22\ CHX Article 19, Rule 1.
    \23\ See supra note 3.
    \24\ Id.
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Operation of Route QCT Cross
    In sum, a Route QCT Cross order submitted by an IB will be handled
like a current Routable Order,\26\ except that the Route QCT Cross
order will never be submitted to the Matching System for execution.
Specifically, upon receipt of a Route QCT Cross order, the Exchange
will cause the order to be routed IOC from the Exchange, through CHXBD,
LLC (``CHXBD''), the Exchange's affiliated routing broker, to the
designated executing broker identified by the IB.\27\ The relationship
between a designated executing broker and CHXBD will be governed by
applicable CHX Rules \28\ and customary interbroker agreements, such as
fully-disclosed clearing and customer agreements. At all times, the use
of Route QCT Cross will be optional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 1(oo).
    \27\ In the event the proposed rule change is approved and
becomes operative, IBs will be permitted to identify only one
designated executing broker to which all Route QCT Cross orders
submitted by the IB will be routed, subject to additional
requirements, as described below.
    \28\ See e.g., CHX Article 19, Rule 2(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the Matching System, CHX Routing Services and CHXBD are each
regulated as a ``facility'' of the Exchange,\29\ as defined under
Section 3(a)(2) of the Act,\30\ the Exchange submits that a designated
executing broker would not be facility of the Exchange for the reasons
described below. Therefore, the execution of Route QCT Cross orders by
the designated executing broker would not be subject to the Exchange's
book and execution priority rules.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See CHX Article 1, Rule 1(z); see also CHX Article 19, Rule
2(a)(1).
    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2). ``The term ``facility'' when used with
respect to an exchange includes its premises, tangible or intangible
property whether on the premises or not, any right to the use of
such premises or property or any service thereof for the purpose of
effecting or reporting a transaction on an exchange (including,
among other things, any system of communication to or from the
exchange, by ticker or otherwise, maintained by or with the consent
of the exchange), and any right of the exchange to the use of any
property or service.'' Id.
    \31\ See CHX Article 20, Rules 8(b) and (d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, a designated executing broker would not be owned by,
or affiliated or associated with, the Exchange or CHXBD, and thus a
designated executing broker would not be a premise or property of the
Exchange. In addition, while the Exchange would provide the routing
infrastructure to permit IBs to execute QCTs OTC, the Exchange does not
have a ``right'' to ``use'' \32\ the property or services of the
designated executing broker (nor does the designated executing broker
have a right to use the property or services of the Exchange) for the
following reasons:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An IB has sole discretion as to the designated executing
broker to which its Route QCT Cross order will be routed.
     Use of the Route QCT Cross routing option is optional. The
Exchange will have no discretion on when and if the Route QCT Cross
will be used.
     Route QCT Cross orders are not eligible for execution
within the Matching System and could be used without regard to the
state of the CHX book. Therefore, the designated executing broker
cannot be considered a mere extension of the Matching System.
    The Exchange notes that Route QCT Cross is similar to the following
routing options of other national securities exchanges:
     Directed Order. Like Route QCT Cross, the ``Directed
Order'' routing option offered by the Nasdaq Stock Market (``Nasdaq'')
permits an order sender to route an order to another market center
while bypassing the Nasdaq's order book,\33\ which may result in the
routed order executing at a price through Nasdaq's top of book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ ```Directed Order' is an Order designed to use a routing
strategy under which the Order is directed to an automated trading
center (as defined in Regulation NMS) other than Nasdaq, as directed
by the entering party, without checking the Nasdaq Book.'' See
Nasdaq Equities Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(ix).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     DRT. Like Route QCT Cross, the ``DRT'' routing option
offered by the Cboe BYX and Cboe BZX exchanges permit an order to be
routed to one or more away alternative trading systems.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ DRT is a ``a routing option in which the entering firm
instructs the System to route to alternative trading systems
included in the System routing.'' See Cboe BYX Rule 11.13(b)(3)(D);
see also Cboe BZX Rule 11.13(b)(3)(D). Both Cboe BYX and BZX have
``the right to maintain a different System routing table for
different routing options and to modify the System routing table at
any time without notice.'' See Cboe BYX Rule 11.13(b)(3); see also
Cboe BZX Rule 11.13(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Proposed Article 19, Rule 4 (Routing Options) and Related
Amendments
    Adoption of the Route QCT Cross routing option requires amendments
to the CHX Rules to describe its functionality and to permit cross
orders to be routed through the CHX Routing Services. As such, the
Exchange proposes the following amendments to the CHX Rules.
    The Exchange proposes to adopt Article 19, Rule 4 (Routing
Options). Proposed paragraph (a) provides that routing options may be
combined with all available order types, modifiers and related terms,
except for order types, modifiers, and related terms that are
inconsistent with the terms of a routing option. Paragraph (a) also
provides that the Exchange may activate or deactivate any routing
option at its discretion and, if practicable, after notice to
Participants.
    Thereunder, proposed paragraph (a)(1) provides that Route QCT Cross
is a routing option, which may only be utilized by Institutional
Brokers, that instructs the Exchange to route a cross order marked QCT
directly to a non-affiliated third-party broker-dealer designated by
the Institutional Broker without submitting the order into the Matching
System for execution. Also, each Institutional Broker is permitted to
identify only one designated executing broker to which all Route QCT
Cross orders submitted by the Institutional Broker shall be routed.
Furthermore, prior to the Exchange accepting any Route QCT Cross orders
directed to a specific designated executing broker, the Exchange shall
confirm that the designated executing broker has established
connectivity to the Exchange's routing systems. In addition, the
Institutional Broker shall be responsible for all away execution fees
resulting from the execution of Route QCT Cross orders, including any
guaranteed payments to its designated executing broker.\35\ Moreover,
Route

QCT Cross orders shall be routed IOC and that a Route QCT Cross order
that could not be executed by a designated executing broker, for any
reason,\36\ shall be cancelled back to the original order sender.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ For example, the Exchange anticipates that a typical
designated executing broker would require a per execution fee and a
guaranteed monthly minimum that would be offset by any executions
fees collected during the month. These fees would be assessed to
CHXBD, which would in turn pass on the fees to the relevant IBs. In
the event a guaranteed payment is due for a given month (i.e., the
guaranteed monthly minimum was not met), the Exchange would divide
the balance equally among the IBs that had identified the broker as
the designated executing broker at any point during that month. For
example, if there were two IBs that each designated Broker A as its
designated executing broker at any point during the month of
November 2018 and a guaranteed payment of $2,000 became due to
Broker A for November 2018, each IB would be assessed a fee of
$1,000 for November 2018.
    \36\ The Exchange notes that a Route QCT Cross order will most
likely be executed upon receipt by a designated executing broker. In
the unlikely event a Route QCT Cross order is cancelled by a
designated executing broker, such an event would most likely be
related to systems issues at a designated executing broker or a
regulatory prohibition (e.g., declaration of a market wide trading
halt in the security during the time the Route QCT Cross order was
in flight to a designated executing broker). A Route QCT Cross order
would not be cancelled for reasons related to the state of a
designated executing broker's order book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Route QCT Cross orders will be routed away from the Exchange
without being submitted to the Matching System for execution, the
Exchange proposes to amend Article 19, Rules 1(a) and (c) to replace
the term ``Matching System'' with ``Exchange.'' Thus, amended Rule 1(a)
would provide, in pertinent part, that Routable Orders that have been
submitted to, and accepted by, the Exchange may be routed from the
Exchange to other Trading Centers pursuant to this Article 19. Amended
Rule 1(c) would provide, in pertinent part, that Routable Orders
submitted to the Exchange are firm orders, pursuant to Article 20, Rule
3.
    Similarly, the Exchange proposes to amend Article 1, Rule 2(a) to
replace the term ``Matching System'' with ``Exchange,'' as a Route QCT
Cross order is a routable cross order marked QCT that is not eligible
to be submitted to the Matching System for execution. Thus, amended
Rule 2(a) would provide in pertinent part that the order types
described under Article 20, Rule 2(a) ``shall be accepted by the
Exchange, subject to the requirements of Article 20, Rule 4.''
    Moreover, since Route QCT Cross orders are a subset of cross orders
that will not be handled IOC upon receipt by the Exchange, and all
cross orders currently received by the Exchange are deemed to have been
received IOC, the Exchange proposes to amend the definition of ``cross
orders'' under Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2) to provide that all cross orders
submitted to the Matching System for execution shall be deemed to have
been received IOC.
    Since the cross orders are not currently Routable Orders, the
Exchange proposes to amend Article 1, Rule 1(oo) by adopting paragraph
(oo)(2), which expands the definition of Routable Orders to include any
order marked by a routing option listed under proposed Article 19, Rule
4 (i.e., Route QCT Cross). Also, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the
word ``incoming'' from proposed Rule 1(oo)(1), as it is redundant in
light of the proposed clarifying amendments to Article 19, Rule 3
described below. Thus, amended Article 1, Rule 1(oo) would provide that
``Routable Order'' means: (1) Any limit order, as defined under Article
1, Rule 2(a)(1), of any size, not marked by any order modifiers or
related terms listed under Article 1, Rule 2 that prohibit the routing
of the order to another Trading Center; provided, however, that during
a SNAP Cycle,\37\ participating SNAP Eligible Orders are always
Routable Orders; or (2) any order marked by a routing option listed
under proposed Article 19, Rule 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See CHX Article 18, Rule 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(4) Amended Article 19, Rule 3 (Mandatory Routing Events)
    Current Article 19, Rule 3 (Routing Events) describes mandatory
routing for Routable Orders submitted to the Matching System, whereas
proposed Article 19, Rule 4 would list routing options, such as Route
QCT Cross, which must be affirmatively selected by the order sender. To
clarify this distinction, the Exchange proposes to amend the title to
Article 19, Rule 3 from ``Routing Events'' to ``Mandatory Routing
Events'' and to amend Article 19, Rule 3(a) to provide that a Routable
Order that is submitted to the Matching System shall be routed away
from the Matching System pursuant to the CHX Routing Services if a
Routing Event is triggered.
    Moreover, the Exchange proposes additional non-substantive
amendments to Article 19, Rules 3(a)(1)-(5) to clarify the current
operation of the current Routing Events.\38\ Amended paragraph (a)(1)
provides that an incoming limit Routable Order shall be routed away to
permit its display and/or execution on the Exchange in compliance with
Rules 610(d) and 611 of Regulation NMS and, for the duration of the
Pilot Period to coincide with the Pilot Period for the Regulation NMS
Plan to Implement a Tick Size Pilot (``Plan''),\39\ the Trade-at
Prohibition described under the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ For a comprehensive description of the Routing Events
described under Article 19, Rules 3(a)(1)-(3), see Exchange Act No.
73150 (September 19, 2014), 79 FR 57603 (September 25, 2014) (SR-
CHX-2014-15). For a comprehensive description of the Routing Events
described under Article 19, Rules 3(a)(4) and (5), see Exchange Act
Release No. 75346 (July 1, 2015), 80 FR 39172 (July 8, 2015) (SR-
CHX-2015-03).
    \39\ See CHX Article 20, Rule 13; see also Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 72460 (June 24, 2014), 79 FR 36840 (June 30, 2014);
see also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74892 (May 6, 2015), 80
FR 27513 (May 13, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amended paragraph (a)(2) provides that an incoming limit Routable
Order for an Odd Lot shall be routed away to prevent its execution
within the Matching System if it would trade-through a Protected
Quotation of an external market.
    Amended paragraph (a)(3) provides that (3) an incoming limit
Routable Order marked Do Not Display or an incoming limit Routable
Order for an Odd Lot that could not be displayed (``incoming
undisplayed limit Routable Order'') shall be routed away to execute
against any Protected Quotation(s) of external market(s) priced at or
better than the limit price of the incoming undisplayed limit Routable
Order if there are no contra-side resting orders on the CHX book
against which the incoming undisplayed limit Routable Order could
execute.
    Amended paragraph (a)(4) provides that Routable Order(s) shall be
routed away to permit orders to be executed within the Matching System
at the SNAP Price, as defined under Article 1, Rule 1(rr), in
compliance with Regulation NMS. Also, orders routed away pursuant to
this paragraph (a)(4) shall be priced -1- at the SNAP Price or, -2- if
the SNAP Price is priced at an increment smaller than the relevant
minimum price increment, at the minimum price increment less aggressive
than the SNAP Price.
    Amended paragraph (a)(5) provides that (5) Routable Order(s) that
could not be matched within the Matching System during a SNAP Cycle, as
described under Article 18, Rule 1(b), shall be routed away at the SNAP
Price to execute against Protected Quotations of external markets
priced at the SNAP Price.
(5) Operative Date
    In the event the proposed rule change is approved, the proposed
rule change shall become operative pursuant to notice to Participants.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act in general,\40\ and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(1) \41\ in particular, in that it would
further enable the Exchange to be so organized as to have the capacity
to be able to carry out the purposes of the Act and to comply, and to
enforce compliance by its Participants and persons associated with its
Participants, with the provisions of the Act, the rules

and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the non-substantive
amendments to Article 19, Rule 3 will clarify the operation of the
mandatory Routing Events described thereunder, as distinguished from
the optional Route QCT Cross routing option described under proposed
Article 19, Rule 4(a)(1). Similarly, the various amendments to provide
that the Route QCT Cross routing option will result in Routable Orders
being routed away from the ``Exchange'' generally and to specifically
provide when orders would be routed away from the Matching System will
clarify how the different types of Routable Orders will be routed away.
In addition, the proposal to permit the Exchange to activate or
deactivate the routing options under proposed Article 19, Rule 4 at its
discretion and, if practicable, after notice to Participants, would be
consistent with the Exchange's current authority to activate and
deactivate certain order types, modifiers and terms pursuant to Article
20, Rule 4(b). Since the proposed Route QCT Cross routing option is an
order type (albeit one that cannot be utilized within the Matching
System), the Exchange believes that harmonizing these provisions under
proposed Article 19, Rule 4 and current Article 20, Rule 4(b) would
clarify the Exchange's discretionary authority with respect to order
types, modifiers and related terms.
    Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the amendments will better
enable the Exchange to enforce compliance by Participants and its
associated persons with CHX Rules in furtherance of the objectives of
Section 6(b)(1) of the Act.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \42\ in that it is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest; and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed Route QCT
Cross routing option will foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities by providing
Participants with an additional execution option for QCT Crosses, which
will enhance their ability to coordinate the execution of QCT Crosses
in a timely manner with other market participants that are handling
related component orders, as required by the Modified QCT Exemptive
Order and CHX Rules.\43\ Moreover, given that that investors typically
utilize QCTs to execute exceptionally large trades and to manage the
substantial risk inherent to large positions, the Exchange submits that
the proposed Route QCT Cross routing option will also protect investors
and the public interest by facilitating the execution (and hedging) of
such important transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See supra note 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, since current CHX Rules only permit IBs to submit QCT
Crosses to the Matching System,\44\ restricting use of the Route QCT
Cross option to IBs only would be consistent with current CHX Rules and
thus not unfairly discriminatory. Moreover, the proposal is not
designed to be unfairly discriminatory as each IB will be (1) permitted
to select the designated executing broker of its choice, subject to
certain requirements applicable to all prospective designated executing
brokers (e.g., the designated executing broker is a non-affiliated
third-party broker-dealer and must establish connectivity to the
Exchange's routing systems) and (2) responsible for all execution fees
and guaranteed payments due to its designated executing broker, the
latter of which may be divided equally among IBs that select the same
designated executing broker during a relevant fee measurement
period.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See supra note 21.
    \45\ See supra note 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the Exchange believes that all proposed amendments to
implement the Route QCT Cross routing option, including amendments to
Article 1, Rule 1(oo) and Article 1, Rule 2(a)(2) to permit cross
orders to become Routable Orders, are consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the
Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition among the
exchanges by improving QCT Cross execution options for Institutional
Brokers. Moreover, the Exchange notes that other national securities
exchanges offer order routing options that permit an order sender to
bypass the exchange's own limit order book \46\ or allows the exchange
to route an order to alternative trading systems designated by the
exchange.\47\ As such, the proposed rule change is a competitive
proposal that will enhance competition among the national securities
exchanges to the benefit of market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See Nasdaq Equities Rule 4758(a)(1)(A)(ix), supra note 33.
    \47\ See e.g., Cboe BYX Rule 11.13(b)(3) and 11.13(b)(3)(D),
supra note 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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 (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 self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove the 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2018-001 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-CHX-2018-001. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will

post all comments on the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-
2018-001 and should be submitted on or before April 10, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-05560 Filed 3-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18192-18193]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06173]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-513, OMB Control No. 3235-0571]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Extension: Rule 206(4)-6

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Rule 206(4)-6''
under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.)
(``Advisers Act'') and the collection has been approved under OMB
Control No. 3235-0571. The Commission adopted rule 206(4)-6 (17 CFR
275.206(4)-6), the proxy voting rule, to address an investment
adviser's fiduciary obligation to clients who have given the adviser
authority to vote their securities. Under the rule, an investment
adviser that exercises voting authority over client securities is
required to: (i) adopt and implement written policies and procedures
that are reasonably designed to ensure that the adviser votes client
securities in the best interest of clients, including procedures to
address any material conflict that may arise between the interests of
the adviser and the client; (ii) disclose to clients how they may
obtain information from the adviser on how the adviser has voted with
respect to their securities; and (iii) describe to clients the
adviser's proxy voting policies and procedures and, on request, furnish
a copy of the policies and procedures to the requesting client. The
rule is designed to assure that advisers that vote proxies for their
clients vote those proxies in their clients' best interest and provide
clients with information about how their proxies were voted.
    Rule 206(4)-6 contains ``collection of information'' requirements
within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The respondents are
investment advisers registered with the Commission that vote proxies
with respect to clients' securities. Advisory clients of these
investment advisers use the information required by the rule to assess
investment advisers' proxy voting policies and procedures and to
monitor the advisers' performance of their proxy voting activities. The
information required by Adviser's Act rule 204-2, a recordkeeping rule,
also is used by the Commission staff in its examination and oversight
program. Without the information collected under the rules, advisory
clients would not have information they need to assess the adviser's
services and monitor the adviser's handling of their accounts, and the
Commission would be less efficient and effective in its programs.
    The estimated number of investment advisers subject to the
collection of information requirements under the rule

is 14,003. It is estimated that each of these advisers is required to
spend on average 10 hours annually documenting its proxy voting
procedures under the requirements of the rule, for a total burden of
140,030 hours. We further estimate that on average, approximately 350
clients of each adviser would request copies of the underlying policies
and procedures. We estimate that it would take these advisers 0.1 hours
per client to deliver copies of the policies and procedures, for a
total burden of 491,050 hours. Accordingly, we estimate that rule
206(4)-6 results in an annual aggregate burden of collection for SEC-
registered investment advisers of a total of 630,135 hours.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted by May 26, 2023.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to: [email protected].

    Dated: March 21, 2023.
Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-06173 Filed 3-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30009-30010]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0025]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 11 individuals
for an exemption from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would
enable these hard of hearing and deaf individuals to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0025 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0025. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0025), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0025. Click on the ``Comment Now!'' button and type
your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether
you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a
third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2020-0025 and choose the document to review. If you do
not have access to the internet, you may view the docket online by
visiting the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of
the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202)
366-9317 or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting Docket Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).
    On February 1, 2013, FMCSA announced in a Notice of Final
Disposition titled, ``Qualification of Drivers; Application for
Exemptions; National Association of the Deaf,'' (78 FR 7479), its
decision to grant requests from 40 individuals for exemptions from the
Agency's physical qualification standard concerning hearing for
interstate CMV drivers. Since that time the Agency has published
additional notices granting requests from hard of hearing and deaf
individuals for exemptions from the Agency's physical qualification
standard concerning hearing for interstate CMV drivers.

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Joshua Affholter

    Mr. Affholter, 37, holds a class B license in Michigan.

Badarch Gantulga

    Mr. Gantulga, 47, holds a class D license in Illinois.

Awash Demoz

    Mr. Demoz, 36, holds a class C license in Maryland.

Daniel DeSimone

    Mr. DeSimone, 53, holds a class A license in Maryland.

Muhammad Javed

    Mr. Javed, 28, holds a class B license in Indiana.

Charles O'Bryan

    Mr. O'Bryan, 45, holds a class D license in New York.

Darrell Pfaff

    Mr. Pfaff, 65, holds a class C license in Texas.

Juan Reyes, Jr.

    Mr. Reyes, 23, holds a class C license in Texas.

Steven Rice

    Mr. Rice, 35, holds a class D license in New York.

Anna Ruiz

    Ms. Ruiz, 50, holds a class D license in Arizona.

Kyle Taylor

    Mr. Taylor, 28, holds a class C license in Georgia.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated under the DATES
section of the notice.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-10687 Filed 5-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 2, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52432-52438]
[FR Doc No: 2019-20905]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 385

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0068]
RIN 2126-AC28

Incorporation by Reference; North American Standard Out-of-
Service Criteria; Hazardous Materials Safety Permits

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA proposes to amend its Hazardous Materials Safety Permits
regulations to incorporate by reference the updated Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance (CVSA) handbook. The Out-of-Service Criteria provide
enforcement personnel nationwide, including FMCSA's State partners,
with uniform enforcement tolerances for roadside inspections.
Currently, the regulations reference the April 1, 2018, edition of the
handbook. Through this document, FMCSA proposes to incorporate by
reference the April 1, 2019, edition.

DATES: Comments on this document must be received on or before November
1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-
2019-0068 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting
comments, including collection of information comments for the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Huntley, Chief, Vehicle
and Roadside Operations Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is
organized as follows:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
    A. Submitting Comments
    B. Viewing Comments and Documents
    C. Privacy Act
    D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Not Required
II. Executive Summary
III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
IV. Background
V. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking
VI. International Impacts
VII. Section-by-Section Analysis
VIII. Regulatory Analyses
    A. E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O. 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures
    B. E.O. 13771 Reducing Regulation and Controlling Costs
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small Entities)
    D. Assistance for Small Entities
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Paperwork Reduction Act
    G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)
    H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)
    J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)
    K. Privacy
    L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)
    N. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)
    O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)
    P. Environment (National Environmental Policy Act)

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
NPRM (Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0068), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
put the docket number, FMCSA-2019-0068, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on the ``Comment Now!''
button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on
behalf of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period and may change this proposed rule based on your
comments. FMCSA may issue a final rule at any time after the close of
the comment period.
Confidential Business Information
    Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial
information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by
its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552),
CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to
this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is
customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you
clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page
of your submission that constitutes CBI as ``PROPIN'' to indicate it
contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked
submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed
in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be
sent to Mr. Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590. Any comments FMCSA receives which are not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this
preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2019-0068, in the
keyword box, and click ``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket
Folder'' button and choose the document to review. If you do not have
access to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

D. Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Not Required

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g), FMCSA is required to publish an advance
notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) if a proposed rule is likely to
lead to the promulgation of a major rule, unless the Agency either
develops the proposed rule through a negotiated rulemaking process or
finds good cause that an ANPRM is impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest. To be a major rule, a rule must result
in or be likely to result in: (1) ``an annual effect on the economy of
$100,000,000 or more;'' (2) ``a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions;'' or (3) ``significant adverse effects
on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on
the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic and export markets.'' 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
This proposed rule does not meet the criteria of a major rule because
it simply incorporates by reference updates to the 2018 CVSA handbook
edition made on April 1, 2019, which, as described below, are largely
editorial and provide clarity and guidance to inspectors and motor
carriers transporting transuranics. Therefore, this proposed rule is
not likely to lead to the promulgation of a major rule and does not
require an ANPRM.

II. Executive Summary

    This rulemaking proposes to update an incorporation by reference
found at 49 CFR 385.4 and referenced at 49 CFR 385.415(b). The
provision at Sec.  385.4(b) currently references the April 1, 2018,
edition of CVSA's handbook titled ``North American Standard Out-of-
Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service
Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and
Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined
in 49 CFR part 173.403.'' The Out-of-Service Criteria, while not
regulations, provide enforcement personnel nationwide, including
FMCSA's State partners, with uniform enforcement tolerances for
roadside inspections. In this rulemaking, FMCSA proposes to incorporate
by reference the April 1, 2019 edition of the handbook.
    Thirteen (13) updates distinguish the April 1, 2019, handbook
edition from the 2018 edition. The incorporation by reference of the
2019 edition does not impose new regulatory requirements.

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    Congress has enacted several statutory provisions to ensure the
safe transportation of hazardous materials in interstate commerce.
Specifically, in provisions codified at 49 U.S.C. 5105(d), relating to
inspections of motor vehicles carrying certain hazardous material, and
49 U.S.C. 5109, relating to motor carrier safety permits, the Secretary
of Transportation is required to promulgate regulations as part of a
comprehensive safety program on hazardous materials safety permits. The
FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49 CFR
1.87(d)(2) to carry out the rulemaking functions vested in the
Secretary of Transportation. Consistent with that authority, FMCSA has
promulgated

regulations to address the congressional mandate on hazardous
materials. Those regulations on hazardous materials are the underlying
provisions to which the material incorporated by reference discussed in
this NPRM is applicable.

IV. Background

    In 1986, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and CVSA entered into
a cooperative agreement to develop a higher level of inspection
procedures, out-of-service conditions and/or criteria, an inspection
decal, and a training and certification program for inspectors to
conduct inspections on shipments of transuranic waste and highway route
controlled quantities of radioactive material. CVSA developed the North
American Standard Level VI Inspection Program for Transuranic Waste and
Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Material. This
inspection program for select radiological shipments includes
inspection procedures, enhancements to the North American Standard
Level I Inspection, radiological surveys, CVSA Level VI decal
requirements, and the ``North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria
and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for
Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route
Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR
part 173.403.'' As of January 1, 2005, all vehicles and carriers
transporting highway route controlled quantities of radioactive
material are regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation. All
highway route controlled quantities of radioactive material must pass
the North American Standard Level VI Inspection prior to the shipment
being allowed to travel in the U.S. All highway route controlled
quantities of radioactive material shipments entering the U.S. must
also pass the North American Standard Level VI Inspection either at the
shipment's point of origin or when the shipment enters the U.S.
    Section 385.415 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations,
prescribes operational requirements for motor carriers transporting
hazardous materials for which a hazardous materials safety permit is
required. Section 385.415(b)(1) requires that motor carriers ensure a
pre-trip inspection is performed on each motor vehicle to be used to
transport a highway route controlled quantity of a Class 7
(radioactive) material, in accordance with the requirements of CVSA's
handbook titled ``North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and
Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for
Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route
Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR
part 173.403.''
    According to 2012-2017 data from FMCSA's Motor Carrier Management
Information System (MCMIS), approximately 3.5 million Level I--Level VI
roadside inspections were performed annually. Nearly 97 percent of
these were Level I,\1\ Level II,\2\ and Level III \3\ inspections.
During the same period, an average of 842 Level VI inspections were
performed annually, comprising only 0.024 percent of all roadside
inspections. On average, out-of-service violations were cited in only
10 Level VI inspections annually (1.19 percent), whereas on average,
out-of-service violations were cited in 269,024 Level I inspections
(25.3 percent), 266,122 Level II inspections (22.2 percent), and 66,489
Level III inspections (6.2 percent) annually. Based on these
statistics, CMVs transporting transuranics and highway route controlled
quantities of radioactive materials are clearly among the best
maintained and safest CMVs on the highways today, due largely to the
enhanced oversight and inspection of these vehicles because of the
sensitive nature of the cargo being transported.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Level I is a 37-step inspection procedure that involves
examination of the motor carrier's and driver's credentials, record
of duty status, the mechanical condition of the vehicle, and any
hazardous materials/dangerous goods that may be present.
    \2\ Level II is a driver and walk-around vehicle inspection,
involving the inspection of items that can be checked without
physically getting under the vehicle.
    \3\ Level III is a driver-only inspection that includes
examination of the driver's credentials and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking

    Section 385.4(b)(1), as amended on July 8, 2019, references the
April 1, 2018, edition of the CVSA handbook. This rule proposes to
amend Sec.  385.4(b)(1) by replacing the reference to the April 1,
2018, edition date with a reference to the new edition date of April 1,
2019.
    The changes made in the 2019 edition of the handbook are outlined
below. It is necessary to update the materials incorporated by
reference to ensure motor carriers and enforcement officials have
convenient access to the correctly identified inspection criteria
referenced in the rules. Amending Sec.  385.4(b), ensures that the
publication is available for interested parties to view at the FMCSA's
Washington, DC office and that the publication may be purchased from
the CVSA's website address, mail address, and phone.

April 1, 2019, Changes

    The 2019 edition identifies (1) driver-related violations of the
FMCSRs that are so severe as to warrant placing the CMV driver out of
service, (2) vehicle equipment-related violations of the FMCSRs that
are so severe as to warrant placing the CMV out of service, and (3)
unsafe conditions in the transportation of hazardous materials. The
purpose of the publication is to provide inspection criteria for
Federal and State motor carrier safety enforcement personnel to promote
uniform and consistent inspection procedures of CMVs operated in
commerce.
    Thirteen changes to the 2019 edition of the CVSA handbook
distinguish it from the April 1, 2018 edition. The first change amended
Part I, Item 4(a) to clarify that a driver operating a CMV without
complying with the requirements indicated on a Skill Performance
Evaluation (SPE) Certificate shall be declared out of service.
Currently, the Out-of-Service Criteria state that a driver will be
placed out of service for ``No skill performance evaluation in
possession, when required.'' The CVSA Driver-Traffic Enforcement
Committee agreed that operating a CMV without complying with the
requirements indicated on the SPE (e.g., the driver possesses an SPE
requiring a prosthetic limb, but is not using the prosthetic limb while
driving) is as serious as not having the SPE in possession when
required. Part I, Item 4(a) was amended to read ``No skill performance
evaluation in possession, when required, or when operating a commercial
motor vehicle without complying with the requirements indicated on the
skill performance evaluation.'' This clarification is not expected to
have any effect on the number of out-of-service violations cited during
Level VI inspections.
    The second change amended the Out-of-Service Criteria Part II
Policy Statement to address a discrepancy between language in CVSA
Operational Policy 5 and the Out-of-Service Criteria Part II Policy
Statement regarding removing or replacing a CVSA decal. Operational
Policy 5 states that any expired CVSA decal shall be removed before a
new CVSA decal is affixed. However, prior to the amendment, the Policy
Statement in Part II of the Out-of-Service Criteria stated that ``a
current CVSA decal shall be affixed and no other CVSA decals shall be
visible.'' As such, the language in the Out-of-Service Criteria allowed
an existing decal to be covered up rather than removed, while

the language in the Operation Policy does not. CVSA noted that covering
up expired decals is problematic because colors can show on the corners
and new decals layered on the vehicle can be easily removed. It was
determined that removing old decals first is most appropriate, and the
Policy Statement in Part II of the Out-of-Service Criteria was amended
to reflect the same guidance that is in Operational Policy 5. This
amendment will not have any effect on the number of out-of-service
violations cited during Level VI inspections.
    The third change amended Part II, Item 1(g)(2) to clarify that a
vehicle should be placed out of service if any rotor (disc) has a crack
in length of more than 75 percent of the friction surface and passes
completely through a structural support connecting the rotor friction
surfaces. The CVSA Vehicle Committee received information from a
Society of Engineers workgroup indicating that a collapse of the rotor
is imminent if there is a crack through the vents, and the vehicle
should be placed out of service. Part II, Item 1(g)(2) was amended to
clarify that a vehicle should be placed out of service if any rotor
(disc) has ``a crack in length of more than 75 percent of the friction
surface and passes completely through the rotor to the center vent from
either side, or completely through a solid rotor, or completely through
a structural support connecting the rotor friction surfaces.'' A
picture was added to clearly outline the condition of the rotor. FMCSA
records indicate that no out-of-service violations have been issued
regarding brake drums and rotors (discs) as a result of a Level VI
inspection in the past 3 years, demonstrating that motor carriers
transporting transuranics and highway route controlled quantities of
radioactive materials ensure that this component is well maintained and
in safe and proper operating condition at all times. The changes are
intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the out-of-service
conditions and are not expected to affect the number of out-of-service
violations cited during Level VI inspections.
    The fourth change amended the Cargo Securement section of the Out-
of-Service Criteria (Part II, Item 2) to add headings to subparagraphs
(a)-(f), consistent with the other sections of the Out-of-Service
Criteria. The new headings are intended to help with the uniformity of
content, as well as to make it easier to distinguish between the
different sections of the Out-of-Service Criteria. This amendment is
editorial in nature and will not have any effect on the number of out-
of-service violations cited during Level VI inspections.
    The fifth change amended the Out-of-Service Criteria Tiedown Defect
Table by adding language to address a new type of tiedown used in cargo
securement applications. Doleco USA has developed a new cargo and
equipment securement tiedown assembly comprised of synthetic chain
links of Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly Ethylene (UHMWPE)
Dyneema[supreg] webbing with specialized hooks and binders. The high-
performance webbing is as strong as steel chain link but weighs up to
85 percent less. Due to the unique nature of its synthetic links, the
manufacturer also provides product specific hooks/fittings for securing
the tiedown ends and a specialized load tensioner for tightening. CVSA
developed an Inspection Bulletin outlining the characteristics and use
of the Doleco USA textile link system. The Out-of-Service Criteria
Tiedown Defect Table was amended, consistent with the information
provided in the CVSA Inspection Bulletin, to ensure that an inspector
can adequately determine if the tiedown is defective once it is in use.
Because of the sensitive nature of the cargo being transported, motor
carriers transporting transuranics and highway route controlled
quantities of radioactive materials are especially diligent regarding
use of tiedowns that do not have any defects, as evidenced by the lack
of any out-of-service violations cited for defective tiedowns during
inspections conducted between 2012-2017. As such, this amendment is not
expected to have any effect on the number of out-of-service violations
cited during Level VI inspections.
    The sixth change amended Part II, Item 4(b)(3) to clarify that any
broken bearing strap on a universal joint of a driveline/driveshaft
would constitute the same imminent hazard as a missing, broken, or
loose retainer bolt, and a vehicle with this condition should be placed
out of service. Part II, Item 4(b)(3) was amended to read ``Any
missing, broken or loose universal joint bearing cap bolt, bearing
strap or retainer bolt,'' and a descriptive label was added to the
current picture of a universal joint in the Out-of-Service Criteria to
help identify and clarify a bearing strap. FMCSA records indicate that
no out-of-service violations have been issued regarding universal
joints as a result of a Level VI inspection in the past 3 years,
demonstrating that motor carriers transporting transuranics and highway
route controlled quantities of radioactive materials ensure that this
component is well maintained and in safe and proper operating condition
at all times. The changes are intended to ensure clarity in the
presentation of the out-of-service conditions and are not expected to
affect the number of out-of-service violations cited during Level VI
inspections.
    The seventh change amended Part II of the Out-of-Service Criteria
to add a new section regarding temporary driver seats. The CVSA Vehicle
Committee approved the addition of a new out of service condition for
vehicles using any temporary seating for the driver, as opposed to a
permanent seat that is secured to the vehicle in a workmanlike manner.
Temporary seating includes, but is not limited to, a milk crate, lawn
chair, patio chair, folding chair, plastic step-stool, or a cooler. The
Out-of-Service Criteria were amended to include a new item, Part II,
Item 4. DRIVER'S SEAT, a. Temporary Seating, to read ``Any vehicle that
has temporary seating for the driver.'' \4\ A note was also added to
this section to provide the list of things that may constitute
temporary seating. As noted above, CMVs transporting transuranics and
highway route controlled quantities of radioactive materials are among
the best maintained and safest CMVs on the highways today, due largely
to the enhanced oversight and inspection of these vehicles because of
the sensitive nature of the cargo being transported. FMCSA believes
that it is highly unlikely that the CMVs transporting these sensitive
commodities will be equipped with temporary seating for the driver, and
as such, the Agency does not expect the addition of this item to the
Out-of-Service Criteria to affect the number of out-of-service
violations cited during Level VI inspections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This addition results in the renumbering of all the Critical
Vehicle Inspection Items in the Out-of-Service Criteria from
Driveline/Driveshaft forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The eighth change amended the Exhaust Systems section of the Out-
of-Service Criteria (Part II, Item 5) to add headings to subparagraphs
(a)-(d), consistent with the other sections of the Out-of-Service
Criteria. The new headings are intended to help with the uniformity of
content, as well as to make it easier to distinguish between the
different sections of the Out-of-Service Criteria. This amendment is
editorial in nature and will not have any effect on the number of out-
of-service violations cited during Level VI inspections.
    The ninth change amended Part II, Item 6 to include subsection (5)
in the note that was already contained in the Out-of-Service Criteria.
The CVSA Passenger Carrier Committee, in consultation with
manufacturers,

determined that subsection (5) should not pertain to buses having
monocoque-style frames. The note to Part II, Item 6 was amended to read
``Items (1) and (2) apply to all buses, including those having unitized
(monocoque) construction. Items (3), (4) and (5) apply only to buses
having a body-on-chassis design, such as most school buses.'' As this
change applies only to buses, it will not have any effect on the number
of out-of-service violations cited during Level VI inspections, which
are applicable to carriers transporting transuranics and highway route
controlled quantities of radioactive materials.
    The tenth change amended Part II, Item 9 to add language to address
non-manufactured holes in the drag link of the steering system.
Following a recommendation from industry partners, the CVSA Vehicle
Committee determined that when a drag link is sufficiently worn to
cause a non-manufactured hole, the link could buckle and lead to the
loss of steering control. Based on the above, if a vehicle is found to
have a non-manufactured hole in a drag link, the vehicle should be
placed out of service, and the Out-of-Service Criteria were amended to
add a new subparagraph (3) to Part II, Item 9(h) to read ``When a drag
link is so worn to cause a non-manufactured hole.'' FMCSA records
indicate that no out-of-service violations have been issued regarding
steering systems as a result of a Level VI inspection in the past 3
years, demonstrating that motor carriers transporting transuranics and
highway route controlled quantities of radioactive materials ensure
that this component is well maintained and in safe and proper operating
condition at all times. The changes are intended to ensure clarity in
the presentation of the out-of-service conditions and are not expected
to affect the number of out-of-service violations cited during Level VI
inspections.
    The eleventh change amended the title of Part II, Item 15,
applicable to buses, motorcoaches, passenger vans, or other passenger-
carrying vehicles, to clarify that the seating requirements in
subparagraph (c) of that item apply to temporary and aisle seats only.
As this change applies only to passenger-carrying vehicles, it will not
have any effect on the number of out-of-service violations cited during
Level VI inspections, which are applicable to carriers transporting
transuranics and highway route controlled quantities of radioactive
materials.
    The twelfth change amended Part III, Items (1)-(10) to make the
formatting of this section consistent with the remainder of the Out-of-
Service Criteria, and to remove redundant language related to hazardous
and dangerous materials inspection standards. This amendment is
editorial in nature and will not have any effect on the number of out-
of-service violations cited during Level VI inspections.
    The thirteenth change amended the North American Standard Out-of-
Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures to add a note to
Item 30, Trupact II Package Tiedown Assemblies. The CVSA Level VI
Inspection Program Committee added a note to address empty packages
that may be transported with loaded packages during a Level VI
inspection, noting that an empty package (TRUPACT II/HALFPACT) shall be
subject to the same tiedown requirements as those applicable to a
loaded package when transported and inspected during a Level VI
inspection. FMCSA records indicate that no out-of-service violations
have been issued regarding securement of packages as a result of a
Level VI inspection in the past 3 years, demonstrating that motor
carriers transporting transuranics and highway route controlled
quantities of radioactive materials ensure that packages are properly
secured at all times. The changes are intended to ensure clarity in the
presentation of the out-of-service conditions, and are not expected to
affect the number of out-of-service violations cited during Level VI
inspections.

VI. International Impacts

    The FMCSRs, and any exceptions to the FMCSRs, apply only within the
United States (and, in some cases, United States territories). Motor
carriers and drivers are subject to the laws and regulations of the
countries in which they operate, unless an international agreement
states otherwise. Drivers and carriers should be aware of the
regulatory differences among nations.
    The CVSA is an organization representing Federal, State and
Provincial motor carrier safety enforcement agencies in the United
States, Canada and Mexico. The Out-of-Service Criteria provide uniform
enforcement tolerances for roadside inspections conducted in all three
countries.

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 385.4 Matter Incorporated by Reference

    Section 385.4(b), as amended on July 8, 2019, references the April
1, 2018, edition of the CVSA handbook. This proposed rule would replace
the reference to the April 1, 2018, edition date with a reference to
the new edition date of April 1, 2019.

VIII. Regulatory Analyses

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), E.O.
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and DOT Regulatory
Policies and Procedures

    FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning
and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not, therefore,
review this document.
    FMCSA also determined that the proposed rule does not warrant
formal analysis of costs and benefits under DOT Policies and Procedures
for Rulemaking [DOT Order 2100.6 dated December 20, 2018, section
11(e)(1)]. The proposed rule, if finalized, would update an
incorporation by reference from the April 1, 2018, edition to the April
1, 2019, edition of CVSA's handbook titled ``North American Standard
Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-
Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting
Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive
Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.'' FMCSA reviewed its MCMIS
data on roadside inspections performed from 2012 to 2017 and determined
that the handbook updates would not have any effect on the number of
out-of-service violations cited during Level VI inspections. Therefore,
the impact of a final rule would be de minimis.

B. E.O. 13771 Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs

    E.O. 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs,'' does not apply to this action because it is not a significant
regulatory action, as defined in section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (Small Entities)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), Public Law 96-354, 94
Stat. 864 (1980), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises
small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.\5\ In compliance with the RFA, FMCSA
evaluated the effects of the proposed rule on small entities. The
proposed rule incorporates by reference updates to the 2018 CVSA
handbook edition made on April 1, 2019, which, as described above, are
largely editorial and provide clarity and guidance to inspectors and
motor carriers transporting transuranics. DOT policy requires an
analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities, and
mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these
entities. None of the updates from the 2018 edition imposes new
requirements or makes substantive changes to the FMCSRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 5 U.S.C. 601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When an Agency issues a rulemaking proposal, the RFA requires the
Agency to ``prepare and make available an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis'' that will describe the impact of the proposed
rule on small entities (5 U.S.C 603(a)). Section 605 of the RFA allows
an agency to certify a rule, instead of preparing an analysis, if the
proposed rule is not expected to impact a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed rule is largely editorial and provides guidance
to inspectors and motor carriers transporting transuranics in
interstate commerce. Accordingly, I hereby certify that if promulgated,
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. FMCSA invites comments from
anyone who believes there will be a significant impact on small
entities from this action.

D. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities
in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions, please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Michael Huntley,
listed in the For Further Information Contact section of this rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the
expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate,
or by the private sector, of $165 million (which is the value
equivalent to $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2018
levels) or more in any one year. This proposed rule will not result in
such an expenditure.

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.),
Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each collection
of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations.
FMCSA determined that no new information collection requirements are
associated with this proposed rule.

G. E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of
Executive Order 13132 if it has ``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.''
    FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule and determined that it does not
have implications for federalism.

H. E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

I. E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires agencies
issuing ``economically significant'' rules to include an evaluation of
their environmental health and safety effects on children, if the
agency has reason to believe that the rule may disproportionately
affect children. The Agency determined this proposed rule is not
economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on
children is required. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that
this regulatory action could pose an environmental or safety risk that
could affect children disproportionately.

J. E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have taking implications.

K. Privacy

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447,
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to
conduct a privacy impact assessment of a regulation that will affect
the privacy of individuals. This proposed rule does not require the
collection of personally identifiable information or affect the privacy
of individuals.

L. E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this
proposed rule.

M. E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it
does not require a Statement of Energy Effects.

N. E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications under E.O.
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

O. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical
Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB,
with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related

management systems practices) are standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. FMCSA does not intend
to adopt its own technical standard, thus there is no need to submit a
separate statement to OMB on this matter. The standard being
incorporated in this proposed rule is discussed in detail in sections
V, Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking, and VII, Section by Section
Analysis, and is reasonably available at FMCSA and through the CVSA
website.

P. Environment (National Environmental Policy Act)

    FMCSA analyzed this rule consistent with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined this action
is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA
Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraph (6)(b).
This Categorical Exclusion (CE) covers minor revisions to regulations.
The content in this proposed rule is covered by this CE, there are no
extraordinary circumstances present, and the proposed action does not
have any effect on the quality of the environment. The CE determination
is available for inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov website
listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 385

    Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety,
Incorporation by reference, Mexico, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR
chapter III, part 385, as set forth below:

PART 385--SAFETY FITNESS PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 385 is revised to read as follows:

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), 5105(d), 5109, 5113
13901-13905, 13908, 31135, 31136, 31144, 31148, and 31502; Sec.
113(a), Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676; Sec. 408, Pub. L.
104-88, 109 Stat. 803, 958; Sec. 350 of Pub. L. 107-87, 115 Stat.
833, 864; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Revise Sec.  385.4(b)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  385.4  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) ``North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI
Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial
Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled
Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part
173.403,'' April 1, 2019, incorporation by reference approved for Sec.
385.415(b).
* * * * *

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on:

    Dated: September 19, 2019.
Raymond P. Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2019-20905 Filed 10-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P