[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61886-61887]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24416]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2014-0030]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request, Write Your Own (WYO) Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a proposed extension, without change, of a currently
approved

information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning the requirements of the
WYO Transaction Record Reporting and Processing Plan.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 15, 2014.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2014-0030. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    (3) Facsimile. Submit comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Montgomery, Financial Management
Analyst, Federal Insurance & Mitigation Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER>
for additional information. You may contact the Records Management
Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at
facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Write Your Own (WYO) Program, FEMA
regulation 44 CFR 62.23 authorizes the Federal Insurance Administrator
to enter into arrangements with individual private sector insurance
companies that are licensed to engage in the business of property
insurance. These companies may offer flood insurance coverage to
eligible property owners utilizing their customary business practices.
To facilitate the marketing of flood insurance, the Federal Government
will be a grantor of flood insurance coverage for WYO Company policies
issued under the WYO arrangement. To ensure that any policyholders'
monies are accounted for and appropriately expended, the Federal
Insurance Administrator implemented a Financial Control Plan (FCP)
under FEMA regulation 44 CFR 62.23(f). This plan requires that each WYO
Company submit financial data on a monthly basis into the National
Flood Insurance Program's Transaction Record Reporting and Processing
Plan (TRRPP) system, as referenced in 44 CFR 62.23(h)(4). The
regulation explains the operational and financial control procedures
governing the issuance of flood insurance coverage under the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by private sector property insurance
companies under the WYO Program.

Collection of Information

    Title: Write Your Own (WYO) Program.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0020.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 129-1, Write Your Own Program.
    Abstract: FEMA enters into arrangements with individual private
sector insurance companies that are licensed to engage in the business
of property insurance. These companies may offer flood insurance
coverage to eligible property owners utilizing their customary business
practices. WYO Companies are expected to meet the recording and
reporting requirements of the WYO Transaction Record Reporting and
Processing Plan.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 88.
    Number of Responses: 1056.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 62304.
    Estimated Cost: There is no annual start-up or capital costs.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: October 1, 2014.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2014-24416 Filed 10-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-52-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29425-29426]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11964]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Human Space
Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight Participants

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The FAA uses the information collected related to public
safety to ensure that a launch or reentry operation involving a human
on board a vehicle will meet the risk criteria and requirements with
regard to ensuring public safety.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by July 19, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy DePaepe at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0720.
    Title: Human Space Flight Requirements for Crew and Space Flight
Participants.
    Form Numbers: There are no FAA forms associated with this
information collection.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The FAA has established requirements for human space
flight of crew and space flight participants as required by the
Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004. The information
collected is used by the FAA, a licensee or permittee, a space flight
participant, or a crew member. The FAA uses the information related to
public safety to ensure that a launch or reentry operation involving a
human on board a vehicle will meet the risk criteria and requirements
with regard to ensuring public safety.
    Respondents: Approximately 5 applicants annually.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 4 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,975 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Kathy
DePaepe, Room 126B, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-200, 6500 S.
MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on May 15, 2013.
Albert R. Spence,
FAA Assistant Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2013-11964 Filed 5-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


The unit exposure values calculated by PHED generally range from the geometric mean to the median of the selected data set. To add consistency and quality control to the values produced from this system, the PHED Task Force has evaluated all data within the system and has Page 61 of 77 developed a set of grading criteria to characterize the quality of the original study data. The assessment of data quality is based on the number of observations and the available quality control data. These evaluation criteria and the caveats specific to each exposure scenario are summarized in Appendix A , Table A7 of the Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment.. While data from PHED provide the best available information on handler exposures, it should be noted that some aspects of the included studies ( e. g., duration, acres treated, pounds of active ingredient handled) may not accurately represent labeled uses in all cases. HED has developed a series of tables of standard unit exposure values for many occupational scenarios that can be utilized to ensure consistency in exposure assessments. Unit exposures are used which represent different levels of personal protection as described above. Protection factors were used to calculate unit exposure values for varying levels of personal protection if data were not available.

ORETF Handler Studies ( MRID 449722 01): A report was submitted by the ORETF ( Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force) that presented data in which the application of various products used on turf by homeowners and lawncare operators ( LCOs) was monitored. All of the data submitted in this report were completed in a series of studies. The study that monitored LCO exposure scenarios using a low pressure, high volume turf handgun ( ORETF Study OMA002) is summarized below.

LCO Handgun Sprayer: A mixer/ loader/ applicator study was performed by ORETF using Dacthal as a surrogate compound to determine " generic" exposures to individuals applying a pesticide to turf with a low pressure " nozzle gun" or " handgun" sprayer. Dermal and inhalation exposures were estimated using whole body passive dosimeters and breathing zone air samples on OVS tubes. Inhalation exposure was calculated using an assumed respiratory rate of 17 liters per minute for light work ( NAFTA, 1999), the actual sampling time for each individual, and the pump flow rate. All results were normalized for pounds active ingredient handled. A total of 90 replicates were monitored using 17 different subjects. Four different formulations of dacthal [ 75% wettable powder ( packaged in 4 and 24 pound bags), 75% wettable powder in water soluble bags ( 3 pound bag), 75% water dispersible granules ( 2 pound bag) and 55% liquid flowable ( 2.5 gallon container)] were applied by five different LCOs to actual residential lawns at each site in three different locations ( Ohio, Maryland, and Georgia) for a total of fifteen replicates per formulation. An additional ten replicates at each site were monitored while they performed spray application only using the 75 percent wettable powder formulation. A target application rate of 2 pounds active ingredient was used for all replicates ( actual rate achieved was about 2.2 pounds active ingredient per acre). Each replicate treated a varying number of actual client lawns to attain a representative target of 2.5 acres ( 1 hectare) of turf. The exposure periods averaged five hours twenty one minutes, five hours thirty nine minutes, and six hours twenty four minutes, in Ohio, Maryland and Georgia, respectively. Average time spent spraying at all sites was about two hours. All mixing, loading, application, adjusting, calibrating, and spill clean up procedures were monitored, except for typical end of day clean up activities ( e. g. rinsing of spray tank, etc). Dermal exposure was measured using inner and outer whole body dosimeters, hand washes, face/ neck washes, and personal air monitoring devices. All test subjects wore one piece, 100 percent cotton inner dosimeters beneath 100 percent cotton long sleeved shirt and long pants, rubber boots and nitrile gloves. Gloves are typically worn by most LCOs, and required by many pesticide labels for mixing and loading. Page 62 of 77 Overall, residues were highest on the upper and lower leg portions of the dosimeters. In general, concurrent lab spikes produced mean recoveries in the range of 78 120 percent, with the exception of OVS sorbent tube sections which produced mean recoveries as low as 65.8 percent. Adjustment for recoveries from field fortifications were performed on each dosimeter section or sample matrix for each study participant, using the mean recovery for the closest field spike level for each matrix and correcting the value to 100 percent. The unit exposure values are presented below. [ Note the data were found to be lognormally distributed. As a result, all exposure values are geometric means.]

Table 9.1.1 Unit Exposure Values Obtained From ORETF LCO Handgun Studies ( MRID 449722 01)

Application Method Inhalation Unit Exposure (

g/ lb ai) 1 LCO Handgun Spray Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Liquid Flowable3 1.8 1Air concentration ( mg/ m3/ lb ai) calculated using NAFTA ` 99 standard breathing rate of 17 lpm ( 1 m3/ hr). 2Exposure calculated using OPP/ HED 50% protection factor ( PF) for cotton coveralls on torso, arms, legs. 3All commercial handlers wore long pants, long sleeved shirt, nitrile gloves and shoes.

9.1.2 Endothall Handler Exposure Scenarios It has been determined that exposure to pesticide handlers is likely during the occupational use of endothall in two distinct occupational environments   applying endothall to crops as a harvest aid and applying endothall to water for aquatic plant control. The anticipated use patterns and current labeling indicate several occupational exposure scenarios based on the types of equipment and techniques that can potentially be used during endothall applications. The quantitative exposure/ risk assessment developed for occupational handlers is based on the following scenarios. [ Note: The scenario numbers correspond to the tables of risk calculations included in the occupational risk calculation sections of the appendices. Endothall inhalation exposure was estimated using PHED or ORETF data.]

Mixer/ Loaders Supporting Applications to Crops: ( 1a) Liquids for Aerial Applications; ( 1b) Liquids for Groundboom Applications;

Applicators Applying to Crops: ( 2) Aerial Applications ( Sprays); ( 3) Groundboom Applications;

Flaggers Supporting Applications to Crops: ( 4) Flagging for Sprays;

Mixer/ Loader/ Applicators Applying to Water: ( 5) Liquid: Handgun Sprayer; ( 6) Liquid: Direct Metering ( using data for mixing/ loading liquid formulations); ( 7) Granular: Blower type Spreader ( using data for loading granules).

9.1.3 Endothall Handler Exposure and Assessment Page 63 of 77 Daily Exposure mg ai day

Unit Exposure mg ai lb ai handled x Application Rate lbs ai area x Daily Area Treated area day Average Daily Dose mg / kg / day

Daily Exposure mg ai day x Absorption Factor (% / 100) Body Weight ( kg) The occupational handler exposure and risk calculations are presented in this section.

<IP_ADDRESS> Endothall Handler Exposure and Risk Calculations Risks were calculated using the Margin of Exposure ( MOE) [ NOAEL/ Exposure]. Daily dose values are calculated by first calculating exposures by considering application parameters ( i. e., rate and area treated) along with unit exposure values. Exposures were then normalized by body weight and adjusted for absorption factors as appropriate to calculate dose levels. MOEs then were calculated.

Daily Exposure: The daily exposure and daily dose to handlers were calculated as described below. The first step was to calculate daily exposure ( inhalation) using the following formula:

Where:

Daily Exposure = Amount ( mg ai/ day) inhaled that is available for inhalation absorption; Unit Exposure = Unit exposure value ( mg ai/ lb ai) derived from August 1998 PHED data and from ORETF data; Application Rate = Normalized application rate based on a logical unit treatment, such as acres, square feet, gallons, or cubic feet. Maximum values are generally used ( lb ai/ A, lb ai/ sq ft, lb ai/ gal, lb ai/ cu ft); and Daily Area Treated = Normalized application area based on a logical unit treatment such as acres ( A/ day), square feet ( sq ft/ day), gallons per day ( gal/ day), or cubic feet ( cu ft/ day).

Daily Dose: Daily dose ( inhalation) was calculated by normalizing the daily inhalation exposure value by body weight and accounting for inhalation absorption. For assessing an average body weight of 60 kilograms was used   representing the body weight of an average adult female handler. Since the inhalation toxicological endpoint of concern is based on an oral study, an inhalation absorption rate is needed and is assumed to be 100 percent. Daily dose was calculated using the following formula:

Where:

Average Daily Dose = Absorbed dose received from exposure to a pesticide in a given scenario ( mg pesticide active ingredient/ kg body weight/ day); Daily Exposure = Amount ( mg ai/ day) inhaled that is available for inhalation absorption; Absorption Factor = A measure of the amount of chemical that crosses a biological boundary such as the skin or lungs (% of the total available absorbed); and Page 64 of 77 MOE

NOAEL mg/ kg/ day Average Daily Dose mg/ kg/ day Body Weight = Body weight determined to represent the population of interest in a risk assessment ( kg).

Margins of Exposure: Finally, the calculations of daily inhalation dose received by handlers were then compared to the appropriate endpoint ( i. e., NOAEL or LOAEL) to assess the total risk to handlers for each exposure route within the scenarios. All MOE values were calculated inhalation exposure levels using the formula below:

Where:

MOE = Margin of exposure, value used by HED to represent risk or how close a chemical exposure is to being a concern ( unitless); ADD = ( Average Daily Dose) or the amount as absorbed dose received from exposure to a pesticide in a given scenario ( mg pesticide active ingredient/ kg body weight/ day); and NOAEL = Dose level in a toxicity study, where no observed adverse effects occurred ( NOAEL or LOAEL) in the study <IP_ADDRESS> Endothall Risk Summary ( using PHED and ORETF)

All of the risk calculations for occupational endothall handlers completed in this assessment are included in Tables <IP_ADDRESS>a and <IP_ADDRESS>b.

. Page 65 of 77 Table <IP_ADDRESS>a . Summery of Endothall Occupational Short and Intermediate Term Inhalation Handler Risks for Agricultural Crops Uses Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Ratea ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Inhalation MOEf, g ( Target Short Term MOE = 100; Target Intermediate Term MOE = 300)

Baseline Attirec PPE  80% Respiratord Engineering Controlse Short term Intermediateterm Short term Intermediateterm Short term Intermediate term Mixer/ Loader Mixing/ Loading Emulsifiable Concentrates ( Liquids) for Aerial Applications Alfalfa ( SLN) 1 1,200 390 83 2,000 420 5,700 1,200 Alfalfa 0.8 1,200 490 100 2,400 520 7,100 1,500 Potatoes 1 350 1,300 290 6,700 1,400 19,000 4,100 Clover 0.8 350 1,700 360 8,400 1,800 24,000 5,200 Cotton ( SLN) 0.13 1,200 3,000 640 15,000 3,200 44,000 9,300 Cotton 0.1 1,200 3,900 830 20,000 4,200 57,000 12,000 Mixing/ Loading Emulsifiable Concentrates ( Liquids) for Groundboom Applications Alfalfa ( SLN) 1 200 2,400 500 12,000 2,500 34,000 7,200 Alfalfa 0.8 200 2,900 630 15,000 3,100 42,000 9,000 Potatoes 1 80 5,900 1,300 29,000 6,300 85,000 18,000 Hops 1 40 12,000 2,500 59,000 36,000 170,000 36,000 Clover 0.8 80 7,300 1,600 37,000 7,800 110,000 23,000 Cotton ( SLN) 0.13 200 18,000 3,800 90,000 19,000 260,000 56,000 Cotton 0.1 200 24,000 5,000 120,000 25,000 340,000 72,000 Applicator Applying Sprays via Aerial Equipment Alfalfa ( SLN) 1 1,200 No Data No Data No Data No Data 6,900 1,500 Alfalfa 0.8 1,200 No Data No Data No Data No Data 8,600 1,800 Potatoes 1 350 No Data No Data No Data No Data 24,000 5,000 Clover 0.8 350 No Data No Data No Data No Data 30,000 6,300 Cotton ( SLN) 0.13 1,200 No Data No Data No Data No Data 53,000 11,000 Cotton 0.1 1,200 No Data No Data No Data No Data 69,000 15,000 Applying Sprays via Groundboom Equipment Alfalfa ( SLN) 1 200 3,800 810 19,000 4,100 66,000 14,000 Alfalfa 0.8 200 4,800 1,000 24,000 5,100 82,000 17,000 Potatoes 1 80 9,500 2,000 48,000 10,000 160,000 35,000 Hops 1 40 19,000 4,100 95,000 20,000 330,000 70,000 Clover 0.8 80 12,000 2,500 60,000 13,000 200,000 44,000 Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Ratea ( lb ai/ acre) Area Treated Dailyb ( acres) Inhalation MOEf, g ( Target Short Term MOE = 100; Target Intermediate Term MOE = 300)

Baseline Attirec PPE  80% Respiratord Engineering Controlse Short term Intermediateterm Short term Intermediateterm Short term Intermediate term Page 66 of 77 Cotton ( SLN) 0.13 200 29,000 6,200 150,000 31,000 500,000 110,000 Cotton 0.1 200 38,000 8,100 190,000 140,000 660,000 140,000 Flagger Flagging for Sprays via Aerial Equipment Alfalfa ( SLN),

Potatoes 1 350 4,600 980 23,000 4,900 37,000 8,000 Alfalfa, Clover 0.8 350 5,800 1,200 29,000 6,100 47,000 10,000 Cotton ( SLN) 0.13 350 35,000 7,500 180,000 38,000 290,000 61,000 Cotton 0.1 350 46,000 9,800 230,000 49,000 370,000 80,000 Page 67 of 77 Table <IP_ADDRESS>b. Summery of Endothall Short and Intermediate Term Occupational Inhalation Handler Risks for Aquatic Uses Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate Surface Area or Length of Water Body ( acres or miles) Depth of Water Body ( feet) Width of Water Body ( feet) Inhalation MOE ( Target Short Term MOE = 100; Target Intermediate Term MOE = 300)

Baseline Attire PPE  80% Respirator Engineering Controls Short term Intermediateterm Short term Intermediateterm Short term Intermediateterm Mixer/ loader Mixing/ loading liquid for groundboom application ( subsurface use) Ponds/

Lakes 13.5 lb ai/ A ft 30 Acres 5 NA 230 50 1150 250 500 ( half face respirator 90%

protection) 3150 670 Ponds/

Lakes 8 lb ai/ A ft 30 Acres 5 NA 400 85 2000 425 4700 1000 Mixing/ Loading Emulsifiable Concentrate with Direct Metering ( PHED:

mixing/ loading liquid ) Flowing Water 0.56 lb ai / minute at 50 cfs 300 minutes/ day NA NA 2800 600 14000 3000 40000 8600 Flowing Water 0.15 lb ai / minute at 200 cfs 120 minutes/ day NA NA 26000 5500 130000 27500 380000 80000 Applicator Applying liquid with groundboom ( subsurface use) Ponds/

Lakes 13.5 lb ai/ A ft 30 Acres 5 NA 375 80 1900 400 NF NF Ponds/

Lakes 8 lb ai/ A ft 30 Acres 5 NA 625 135 3150 675 NF NF Mixer/ Loader/ Applicator Mixing/ Loading/ Applying Emulsifiable Concentrates with a Handgun Sprayer ( LCO ORETF data) Ponds/ Lakes 13.5 lb ai/ A ft 10 Acres/ day 2 NA 1160 245 5900 1250 NF NF Ponds/ Lakes 8 lb ai/ A ft 10 Acres/ day 2 NA 1880 400 9800 2100 NF NF Canals 1.7 lb ai/ canal 1 mile X 1 ft wide x 1 ft deep 10 miles long 2 20 470 100 2300 500 NF NF Canals 1.7 lb ai/ canal 1 mile X 1 ft wide x 1 ft deep 10 miles long 2 5 1880 400 9400 2000 NF NF Canals 1lb ai/ canal 1 mile X 1 ft wide x 1 ft deep 10 miles long 2 20 785 165 4000 850 NF NF Canals 1 lb ai/ canal 1 mile X 1 ft wide x 1 ft deep 10 miles long 2 5 3135 670 16000 3400 NF NF Table <IP_ADDRESS>b. Summery of Endothall Short and Intermediate Term Occupational Inhalation Handler Risks for Aquatic Uses Exposure Scenario Crop or Target Application Rate Surface Area or Length of Water Body ( acres or miles) Depth of Water Body ( feet) Width of Water Body ( feet) Inhalation MOE ( Target Short Term MOE = 100; Target Intermediate Term MOE = 300)

Baseline Attire PPE  80% Respirator Engineering Controls Short term Intermediateterm Short term Intermediateterm Short term Intermediateterm Page 68 of 77 Loading/ Applying Granulars ( PHED: open loading granulars) Ponds/ Lakes 9.8 lb ai/ A ft 30 Acres/ day 5 NA 230 48 1100 240 480 ( half face respirator 90%

protection) NF NF Canals 1.6 lb ai/ canal 1 mile X 1 ft wide x 1 ft deep 10 miles long 5 20 208 45 1050 220 450 ( half face respirator 90%

protection) NF NF Canals 1.6 lb ai/ canal 1 mile X 1 ft wide x 1 ft deep 10 miles long 5 5 860 180 4100 870 NF NF 9.1.4 Cancer Endothall Handler Exposure and Risk Assessment Page 69 of 77 No occupational handler cancer risk assessment is needed for endothall, since no cancer endpoint of concern was identified.

9.1.5 Summary of Risk Concerns and Data Gaps for Occupational Handlers The occupational handler scenarios for endothall have no risks associated with them and are above HED's level of concern for inhalation risk assessments( MOE > 100). The assessment involving the aquatic herbicide scenarios uses substitute inhalation unit exposure values, since no data are available for assessing inhalation exposures from the use of boat mounted application equipment. These occupational handler scenarios for endothall could be better refined with equipment specific exposure data.

<IP_ADDRESS> Summary of Data Gaps Several data gaps were identified for endothall in many different aquatic use areas that include:

° mixing/ loading/ applying liquid formulations to aquatic areas using handheld equipment;

$ loading/ applying liquid formulations to aquatic areas using direct metering; and $ loading/ applying granular formulations to aquatic areas using centrifugal or blower type equipment.

9.1.6 Recommendations For Refining Occupational Handler Risk Assessment In order to refine this occupational risk assessment, data on actual use patterns including rates, timing, and areas treated would better characterize endothall risks. Exposure studies for many equipment types that lack data or that are not well represented in PHED ( e. g., because of low replicate numbers or data quality) should also be considered based on the data gaps identified above and based on a review of the quality of the data used in this assessment.

9.2 Occupational Postapplication Exposures and Risks Agricultural Crop Uses:

EPA did not assess occupational postapplication risks to agricultural workers following treatments to agricultural crops, since no dermal endpoint of concern was identified.

The Environmental Protection Agency's requirements regarding Restricted entry Intervals ( REIs) are included in the 40 CFR 156.208. Guidance on applying these requirements are also included in Chapter 11 of the Office of Pesticide Programs' Label Review Manual. In accordance with the 40 CFR 156.208, the REI is based on the acute toxicity of the " technical active ingredient material".

The toxicity categories of the active ingredient for acute dermal, eye irritation, and skin irritation potential are used to determine the interim REI. If one or more of the three acute toxicity effects are in toxicity category I, the interim REI is established at 48 hours. If none of the acute toxicity effects are in Page 70 of 77 category I, but one or more of the three is classified as category II, the interim REI is established at 24 hours. The acute toxicity classification for primary eye irritation of endothall is category I which requires a 48 hour REI.

Aquatic Uses: Postapplication occupational exposures following endothall application to aquatic areas is likely limited to persons who contact the treated water to perform tests, such as testing the levels of endothall, or persons such as agricultural workers or irrigation water suppliers who contact treated water in irrigation canals. Worse case postapplication exposures to endothall following application in aquatic sites is likely to be to persons who swim in the treated waters. The swimmer exposure to endothall followed the guidance provided in the Agency's draft SOP. The standard exposure factors provided in the residential SOP were used to assess noncompetitive swimmer exposure. The exposure to competitive swimming was not assessed since endothall is not used in swimming pools.

Refer to residential postapplication section for postapplication exposure assessment to aquatic uses of endothall for noncompetitive swimmers ( i. e., recreational).

10.0 Date Needs and Label Requirements 10.1 Toxicology 870.3700b Developmental Toxicity/ Teratology ( rabbit)

870.3465 28 Day Inhalation 10.2 Residue Chemistry, Label Needs, Tolerance Reassessment Residue Chemistry Deficiencies 10.2.1. Radiovalidation data to determine whether the current enforcement methods for plants and the required enforcement methods for animals and fish can adequately extract and convert aged residues of the monomethyl ester to endothall.

10.2.2. Data collection and regulatory analytical methods for the determination of endothall, per se, in animal commodities.

10.2.3. Storage stability data for processed plant commodities, animal commodities, and fish.

10.2.4. Livestock ( ruminant and poultry) feeding studies 10.2.5. Magnitude of the residue studies in irrigated crops.

10.2.6. Magnitude of the residue studies in potato, alfalfa seed, cottonseed, and cotton gin byproducts. Magnitude of the residue studies in the RACs of sugar beet and rice if the registrant intends to support these uses. Page 71 of 77 10.2.7. Processing studies on apples, corn ( field), grapes, orange, rice, sorghum, soybeans, sugar beet, tomato, and wheat, to cover irrigation uses.

10.2.8. Submission of analytical reference standards for dipotassium and mono N, Ndimethylalkyl amine salts of endothall.

10.2.9. An acceptable confined rotational crop study, or in lieu of a confined rotational crop, limited rotational crop field trials may be performed for crops with TRR exceeding 0.01 ppm in the existing confined rotational crop study, so long as all of endothall and its monoomethyl and dimethyl metabolites are tested.

Label Needs Labeling on the Hydrothol ( mono N, N dimethylalkyl amine salt of endothall) formulations instructs the user how to apply the product at 5 ppm of the free acid endothall equivalents, while the Aquathol ( dipotassium salt of endthall) labels instruct the user how to apply these formulations at 5 ppm as the dipotassium salt of endothall. Thus, while the application rates are nominally the same, 5 ppm, the molecular weight difference between these two forms of endothall causes a difference to exist between these two treatment rates. This discrepancy is confusing and HED recommends that the labels for the dipotassium salt ( Aquathol) should be modified to include a description of the application rate when it is expressed as ppm in endothall, acid equivalents.

A maximum seasonal application rate must be added to the label for applications to irrigation water.

Tolerance Reassessment Table 10.2.1. Tolerance Summary for Endothall.

Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments Tolerances Listed Under 40 CFR § 180.293 ( a)( 1)

Cotton, Undelinted Seed 0.1 To be determined ( TBD) Additional data are required.

Hop 0.1 TBD Additional data are required Change commodity name to Hop, Dried Cones Potato 0.1 TBD Additional data are required. Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments Page 72 of 77 Rice, Grain 0.05( N) TBD Although there are presently no registered uses on rice, HED recommends for the retention of these tolerances until the registrant has submitted the requested irrigation crop data which should include data for rice commodities. Rice, Straw 0.05( N) TBD Tolerance Listed Under 40 CFR § 180.293 ( a)( 2)

Potable Water 0.2 Revoke Tolerance OPP no longer establishes tolerances in drinking water. EPA's Office of Water has established an MCL for endothall at 0.10 ppm.

Tolerance Listed Under 40 CFR § 180.319 Beet, Sugar 0.2 TBD Additional data are required. Although there are presently no registered uses on sugar beets, HED recommends for the retention of the interim tolerance until the registrant has submitted the requested irrigation crop data. Residue data must include data for both sugar beet root and tops. Change commodity name to Beet, sugar, root 10.3 Occupational and Residential Exposure HED recommends that label language clearly state that workers be required to wear protective eyewear when handling this chemical.

10.3.1 Summary of Data Gaps Several data gaps were identified for endothall in aquatic use areas that include:

1.04 mixing/ loading/ applying liquid formulations to aquatic areas using handheld equipment; 1.05 loading/ applying liquid formulations to aquatic areas using direct metering; and 1.06 loading/ applying granular formulations to aquatic areas using centrifugal or blower type equipment. Page 73 of 77 10.3.2 Recommendations For Refining Occupational Handler Risk Assessment In order to refine the occupational risk assessment, data on actual use patterns including rates, timing, and areas treated would better characterize endothall risks. Exposure studies for many equipment types that lack data or that are not well represented in PHED ( e. g., because of low replicate numbers or data quality) should also be considered based on the data gaps identified above and based on a review of the quality of the data used in the occupational risk assessment. Page 74 of 77 Page 75 of 77 References:

Memo: ENDOTHALL Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee. June 14, 2004. Robert P. Zendzian PhD Senior Pharmacologist, Toxicology Branch, Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

Memo: Endothall. Report of the Health Effects Division ( HED) Risk Assessment Review Committee ( RARC). 4 NOV 2004 Jennifer Tyler, Executive Secretary RARC/ HED Memo: Endothall: Toxicology Disciplinary Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( RED). Robert P. Zendzian PhD, Senior Pharmacologist, Toxicology Branch, Health Effects Division, ( 7509C)

Memo. Endothall and its Salts: Product Chemistry Considerations for Reregistration Eligibility Decision. Case No. 2245 DP Barcode 304026. 10 June 2004 David Soderberg, Chemist, Reregistration Branch 3, Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

Memo. Endothall and its Salts: Residue Chemistry Considerations for Reregistration Eligibility Decision. Case No. 2245. 29 November 2004 David Soderberg, Chemist, Reregistration Branch 3, Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

Memo: Endothall and its Salts. Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision. 29 November 2004. David Soderberg, Chemist, Reregistration Branch 3, Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

Memo: Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for Endothall. November 15, 2004. Seyed Tadayon, Chemist, Reregistration Branch 2, Health Effects Division ( 7509C)

Memo: Drinking Water Assessment for Endothall for both Terrestrial and Aquatic Uses. Registrant: Cerexagri. May 5, 2004. James Breithaupt, Agronomist Environmental Risk Branch II Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

Memo: Review of Endothall ( and salts) Incident Reports. DP Barcode DP304467, Chemical# 038901 ( and salts 038902 11). June 24, 2004. Jerome Blondell, Ph. D., Health Statistician Chemistry and Exposure Branch Health Effects Division ( 7509C) and Monica S. Hawkins, M. P. H., Environmental Health Scientist Chemistry and Exposure Branch Health Effects Division ( 7509C Page 76 of 77 Appendices 1.0 TOXICOLOGY DATA REQUIREMENTS The requirements ( 40 CFR 158.340) for food use for endothall are in Table 1. Use of the new guideline numbers does not imply that the new ( 1998) guideline protocols were used.

Table 1 Toxicology Data Requirements for Endothall Test Technical Required Satisfied 870.1100Acute Oral Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.1200Acute Dermal Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.1300Acute Inhalation Toxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.2400 Primary Eye Irritation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.2500 Primary Dermal Irritation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.2600 Dermal Sensitization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes 870.3100 Oral Subchronic ( rodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3150 Oral Subchronic ( nonrodent) . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3200 21 Day Dermal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3250 90 Day Dermal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.3465 90 Day Inhalation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no 870.3700a Developmental Toxicity ( rodent) . . . . . 870.3700b Developmental Toxicity ( nonrodent) . . . 870.3800Reproduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes yes no yes 870.4100a Chronic Toxicity ( rodent) . . . . . . . . . . . 870.4100b Chronic Toxicity ( nonrodent) . . . . . . . . 870.4200a Oncogenicity ( rat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.4200b Oncogenicity ( mouse) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.4300Chronic/ Oncogenicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes yes yes yes yes chronic/ onco yes chronic/ onco yes yes 870.5100Mutagenicity   Gene Mutation  bacterial . . . 870.5300Mutagenicity   Gene Mutation  mammalian 870.5xxxMutagenicity   Structural Chromosomal Aberrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.5xxxMutagenicity   Other Genotoxic Effects . . . . yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Test Technical Required Satisfied Page 77 of 77 870.6100a Acute Delayed Neurotox. ( hen) . . . . . . 870.6100b 90 Day Neurotoxicity ( hen) . . . . . . . . . 870.6200a Acute Neurotox. Screening Battery ( rat) 870.6200b 90 Day Neurotox. Screening Battery ( rat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.6300 Developmental Neurotoxicity . . . . . . . . . . . . no no no no no

870.7485 General Metabolism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870.7600 Dermal Penetration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . yes no yes yes Special Studies for Ocular Effects Acute Oral ( rat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Subchronic Oral ( rat) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Six month Oral ( dog) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no no no


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 22 (Thursday, February 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4704-4707]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01952]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82592; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2017-99]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Amendment No. 2 and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine
Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 2, To List and Trade Shares of the Hartford Schroders
Tax-Aware Bond ETF Under NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E

January 26, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On October 11, 2017, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to list and trade shares (``Shares'') of the
Hartford Schroders Tax-Aware Bond ETF (``Fund'') under NYSE Arca Rule
8.600-E. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on October 31, 2017.\3\ On November 21, 2017, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, which
replaced and superseded the proposed rule change as originally filed.
On December 14, 2017, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ On January 18, 2018, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to
the proposed rule change, which replaced and superseded the proposed
rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1.\6\ The Commission is

publishing this notice and order to solicit comments on the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, from interested persons
and to institute proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
\7\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81944 (October 25,
2017), 82 FR 50461.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82323, 82 FR 60455
(December 20, 2017). The Commission designated January 29, 2018 as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove,
or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the
proposed rule change.
    \6\ In Amendment No. 2, the Exchange: (1) Stated that State
Street Bank and Trust Company will serve as transfer agent and
custodian for the Fund; (2) removed certain conditions on the
definition of the ``fire wall'' between the Sub-Adviser and its
broker-dealer subsidiary; (3) represented that personnel who make
decisions on the Fund's portfolio composition must be subject to
procedures designed to prevent the use and dissemination of
material, non-public information regarding the Fund's portfolio; (4)
clarified that cash and cash equivalents are included in the Fund's
principal investments and specified that for purposes of this
filing, cash equivalents are the short-term instruments enumerated
in Commentary .01(c) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E; (5) provided
additional information regarding the Fund's non-principal
investments; (6) specified that restricted securities are included
in the Fund's non-principal investments; (7) added an explanation
regarding the Manager's belief that the creation and redemption
cutoff time (1:00 p.m. Eastern Time) will not have a material impact
on an authorized participant's arbitrage opportunities with respect
to the Fund; (8) added a statement that the Manager represents that,
to the extent the Trust effects the creation or redemption of Shares
wholly or partially in cash, such transactions will be effected in
the same manner for all authorized participants; (9) specified
additional quantitative information relating to the Shares that will
be included on the Fund's website; (10) supplemented the description
of the availability of information for the Fund's investments; (11)
defined the term ``periods of high cash inflows or outflows'' as
used in this filing; (12) added a statement that the Manager
represents that the fixed income weight of the Fund's portfolio,
other than holdings in Municipal Securities, will meet the generic
listing requirements of Commentary .01(b) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E;
(13) stated that the Manager will be the ``Reporting Authority'' for
purposes of NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E(d)(2)(B)(ii); and (14) made other
clarifications, corrections, and technical changes. Amendment No. 2
is available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2017-99/nysearca201799-2935844-161848.pdf.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 2 [bds8]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ For more information regarding the Fund and the Shares, see
Amendment No. 2, supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade Shares of the Fund under
NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E, which governs the listing and trading of
Managed Fund Shares. The Fund is a series of the Hartford Funds
Exchange-Traded Trust (``Trust''), which is registered with the
Commission as an open-end management investment company.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Trust is registered under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (``1940 Act''). On June 26, 2017, the Trust filed with the
Commission its registration statement on Form N-1A under the
Securities Act of 1933 and under the 1940 Act relating to the Fund
(File Nos. 333-215165 and 811-23222). The Exchange states that the
Commission has issued an order granting certain exemptive relief to
the Trust under the 1940 Act. See Investment Company Act Release No.
32454 (January 27, 2017) (File No. 812-13828-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC (``Manager'') will be the
investment manager to the Fund, and Schroder Investment Management
North America Inc. (``Sub-Adviser'') will be the sub-adviser to the
Fund and perform the daily investment of the assets for the Fund.\10\
ALPS Distributors, Inc. will be the principal underwriter to the Fund.
State Street Bank and Trust Company will serve as transfer agent and
custodian for the Fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ According to the Exchange, neither the Manager nor the Sub-
Adviser is registered as a broker-dealer, but each is affiliated
with a broker-dealer. The Exchange states that the Manager and Sub-
Adviser each has implemented and will maintain a ``fire wall'' with
respect to such broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to
information concerning the composition of and/or changes to the
Fund's portfolio. In addition, personnel who make decisions on the
Fund's portfolio composition must be subject to procedures designed
to prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public
information regarding the Fund's portfolio. In the event (a) the
Manager or Sub-Adviser becomes registered as a broker-dealer or
newly affiliated with a broker-dealer, or (b) any new adviser or
sub-adviser to the Fund is a registered broker-dealer or becomes
affiliated with a broker-dealer, the applicable adviser or sub-
adviser will implement and maintain a fire wall with respect to its
relevant personnel or broker-dealer affiliate regarding access to
information concerning the composition of and/or changes to the
Fund's portfolio, and will be subject to procedures designed to
prevent the use and dissemination of material, non-public
information regarding such portfolio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the Fund will seek total return on an
after-tax basis and will seek to achieve its investment objective by
investing in a diversified portfolio of fixed income debt instruments
of varying maturities.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In seeking to achieve the Fund's investment objective, the
Sub-Adviser will employ a tax-aware investing strategy that attempts
to realize total return for shareholders, primarily in the form of
current income and price appreciation, by balancing investment
considerations and tax considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Principal Investments

    Under normal market conditions,\12\ the Fund will invest
principally (that is, more than 50% of its assets) in the U.S. dollar-
denominated fixed income debt instruments described below, and in cash
and cash equivalents.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``normal market conditions'' is defined in NYSE
Arca Rule 8.600-E(c)(5).
    \13\ For purposes of this filing, cash equivalents are the
short-term instruments enumerated in Commentary .01(c) to NYSE Arca
Rule 8.600-E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fixed income debt instruments in which the Fund may invest as
part of its principal investment strategy are securities issued or
guaranteed by the U.S. government and its agencies, government-
sponsored enterprise securities, corporate bonds, agency mortgage-
backed securities (including ``to be announced'' or ``TBA''
transactions), agency asset-backed securities (``ABS''), ``Municipal
Securities'' (as described below), sovereign debt, and debt securities
issued by supranational organizations. They may pay fixed, variable, or
floating interest rates.
    The Fund may invest in the following Municipal Securities: General
obligation bonds; revenue (or limited obligation) bonds; private
activity (or industrial development) bonds; bonds that are
collateralized with agency and/or treasury securities; municipal notes;
municipal lease obligations; and municipal inverse floaters.

B. Other Investments

    While the Fund, under normal market conditions, will invest
principally in the securities and financial instruments described
above, the Fund may invest its remaining assets in the securities and
financial instruments described below.
    The Fund may invest in U.S. and foreign non-agency ABS, which are
securities backed by a pool of some underlying asset, including but not
limited to home equity loans, installment sale contracts, credit card
receivables, or other assets.
    The Fund may invest in U.S. and foreign non-agency mortgage-related
securities. Mortgage-related securities may be composed of one or more
classes and may be structured either as pass-through securities or
collateralized debt obligations (which include collateralized bond
obligations and collateralized loan obligations).
    The Fund may invest in U.S. exchange-traded closed-end funds and
exchange-traded funds (``ETFs'').\14\ The Fund also may invest in non-
exchange-traded securities of other registered investment companies
(i.e., mutual funds).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes of this filing, ETFs include Investment
Company Units (as described in NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3));
Portfolio Depositary Receipts (as described in NYSE Arca Rule 8.100-
E); and Managed Fund Shares (as described in NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-
E). The ETFs all will be listed and traded in the U.S. on registered
exchanges. The Fund will not invest in inverse or leveraged (e.g.,
+2x, -2x) index ETFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund may engage actively in transactions in derivatives
(futures, options, swaps, and forward rate agreements) as described
below. The Fund will normally use derivatives to supplement the
effective management of its duration profile, to gain exposure to
particular securities or markets, in connection with hedging
transactions, or for purposes of efficient portfolio management,
including managing cash flows or as part of the Fund's risk management
process.
    The Fund may invest in U.S and foreign exchange-traded and over-the
counter (``OTC'') put and call options. The Fund may engage in options
transactions on any security, index, or instrument in which it may
invest.

    The Fund may invest in U.S and foreign exchange-traded and OTC
currency options.
    The Fund may invest in U.S. and foreign exchange-traded futures
contracts and options on futures contracts with respect to equity and
debt securities, foreign currencies, aggregates of equity and debt
securities (aggregates are composites of equity or debt securities that
are not tied to a commonly known index), interest rates, indices,
commodities, and other financial instruments.
    The Fund may enter into the following U.S exchange-traded, foreign
exchange-traded, and OTC swaps: Commodity swaps; total return swaps;
currency swaps; credit default swaps (``CDS''); CDS index swaps
(``CDX''); asset swaps; inflation swaps; event-linked swaps; interest
rate swaps; swaps on specific securities or indices; and swaps on rates
(such as mortgage prepayment rates). The Fund may invest in U.S.
exchange-traded and OTC municipal derivatives (i.e., municipal credit
default swaps, municipal market data derivatives, rate locks, caps,
collars, and floors). The Fund may also enter into options on swap
agreements (``swaptions'').\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Options on swaps are traded OTC. In the event that there
are exchange-traded options on swaps, the Fund may invest in these
instruments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fund may enter into forward rate agreements.
    The Fund may invest in inflation-protected debt securities.
    The Fund may invest in convertible and nonconvertible preferred
stock traded OTC or on U.S. and non-U.S. exchanges.
    The Fund may hold restricted securities, which are securities that
cannot be offered for public resale unless registered under the
applicable securities laws or that have a contractual restriction that
prohibits or limits their resale.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Restricted securities include private placement securities
that have not been registered under the applicable securities laws,
such as Rule 144A securities, and securities of U.S. and non-U.S.
issuers that are issued pursuant to Regulation S.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to any of the Fund's investments, the Fund may invest
in when-issued and delayed delivery securities and forward commitments.

C. Investment Restrictions

    The Exchange represents that the Fund's investments will be
consistent with its investment goal and will not be used to provide
multiple returns of a benchmark or to produce leveraged returns.
    With respect to the Fund's investments in Municipal Securities,
under normal market conditions, except for periods of high cash inflows
or outflows,\17\ the Fund will satisfy the following criteria:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ ``Periods of high cash inflows or outflows'' as used in
this filing means rolling periods of seven calendar days during
which inflows or outflows of cash, in the aggregate, exceed 10% of
the Fund's net assets as of the opening of business on the first day
of such periods. During such periods, the Fund may depart from its
principal investment strategies; for example, it may hold a higher
than normal proportion of its assets in cash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The Fund will have a minimum of 20 non-affiliated issuers;
    2. No single Municipal Securities issuer will account for more than
10% of the weight of the Fund's portfolio;
    3. No individual bond will account for more than 5% of the weight
of the Fund's portfolio;
    4. The Fund will limit its investments in Municipal Securities of
any one state or U.S. territory to 25% of the Fund's total assets,
except that up to and including 40% of the Fund's total assets may be
invested in Municipal Securities of issuers in each of California, New
York, and Texas;
    5. The Fund's investments in Municipal Securities will be
diversified among issuers in at least 10 states and U.S. territories;
and
    6. The Fund will be diversified among a minimum of five different
sectors of the Municipal Securities market.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Fund's investments in Municipal Securities will include
investments in state and local (e.g., county, city, town) Municipal
Securities relating to such sectors as the following: airports;
bridges and highways; hospitals; housing; jails; mass
transportation; nursing homes; parks; public buildings; recreational
facilities; school facilities; streets; and water and sewer works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that pre-refunded bonds will be excluded from
the above limits given that they have a high level of credit quality
and liquidity.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Exchange states that pre-refunded bonds (also known as
refunded or escrow-secured bonds) have a high level of credit
quality and liquidity because the issuer ``pre-refunds'' the bond by
setting aside in advance all or a portion of the amount to be paid
to the bondholders when the bond is called. Generally, an issuer
uses the proceeds from a new bond issue to buy high grade, interest
bearing debt securities, including direct obligations of the U.S.
government, which are then deposited in an irrevocable escrow
account held by a trustee bank to secure all future payments of
principal and interest on the pre-refunded bonds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Application of Generic Listing Requirements

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade the Shares under NYSE Arca
Rule 8.600-E, which includes generic listing requirements for Managed
Fund Shares. According to the Exchange, the Fund's portfolio will not
meet all of the generic listing requirements of Commentary .01 to NYSE
Arca Rule 8.600-E. Commentary .01(b)(1) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E
requires that, on both an initial and continuing basis, components that
in the aggregate account for at least 75% of the fixed income weight of
the portfolio each have a minimum original principal amount outstanding
of $100 million or more. The Exchange states that the Fund would not
meet this requirement, as a result principally of the Fund's
investments in Municipal Securities. The Exchange represents that the
Fund's investments in Municipal Securities would be subject to the
requirements described in Section II.C. above. The Exchange notes that
the Manager represents that the fixed income weight of the Fund's
portfolio, other than holdings in Municipal Securities, will meet the
generic listing requirements of Commentary .01(b). The Exchange also
represents that, other than Commentary .01(b)(1), the Fund's portfolio
will meet all other requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E.

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove SR-
NYSEArca-2017-99, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, and Grounds for
Disapproval Under Consideration

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \20\ to determine whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, should be approved or
disapproved. Institution of such proceedings is appropriate at this
time in view of the legal and policy issues raised by the proposed rule
change. Institution of proceedings does not indicate that the
Commission has reached any conclusions with respect to any of the
issues involved. Rather, as described below, the Commission seeks and
encourages interested persons to provide comments on the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\21\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for disapproval under consideration.
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
analysis of the proposal's consistency with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be ``designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade,'' and ``to protect investors and the public
interest.'' \22\ As discussed above, the Exchange notes that, other
than

Commentary .01(b)(1), the Fund's portfolio will meet all other
requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E. The Commission notes that
Commentary .01(a)(1)(E) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E requires that, on
both an initial and continuing basis, the component stocks of the
equity portion of a portfolio that are U.S. Component Stocks (as
described in NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3)) be listed on a national
securities exchange and be NMS Stocks as defined in Rule 600 of
Regulation NMS under the Act.\23\ Commentary .01(a)(2)(E) to NYSE Arca
Rule 8.600-E requires that, on both an initial and continuing basis,
the component stocks of the equity portion of a portfolio that are Non-
U.S. Component Stocks (as described in NYSE Arca Rule 5.2-E(j)(3)) be
listed and traded on an exchange that has last-sale reporting. In the
proposal, the Exchange states that the Fund may invest in non-exchange-
traded securities of other registered investment companies (i.e.,
mutual funds) and OTC convertible and nonconvertible preferred stocks,
but does not explain the application of Commentary .01(a)(1)(E) or
Commentary .01(a)(2)(E) (or both) to these investments, and why these
investments are consistent with the Act. The Commission seeks
commenters' views on these aspects of the proposal, and whether the
Exchange's statements and representations support a determination that
the listing and trading of the Shares would be consistent with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \23\ Commentary .01(a)(1)(F) to NYSE Arca Rule 8.600-E provides
that American Depositary Receipts (``ADRs'') in a portfolio may be
exchange-traded or non-exchange-traded, but no more than 10% of the
equity weight of a portfolio may consist of non-exchange-traded
ADRs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Procedure: Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
submissions of their views, data, and arguments with respect to the
issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have
with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written
views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 2, is consistent with Section
6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations
thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to
approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral
presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will
consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\24\ any request for an
opportunity to make an oral presentation.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \25\ Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, as amended by the Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Public Law 94-29 (June 4, 1975), grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by a self-regulatory
organization. See Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, Senate Comm.
on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st
Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 2, should be approved or disapproved by February 22,
2018. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's
submission must file that rebuttal by March 8, 2018.
    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-NYSEArca-2017-99 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-NYSEArca-2017-99. 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-NYSEArca-2017-99 and should be submitted
by February 22, 2018. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by March 8,
2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\26\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-01952 Filed 1-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 154 (Thursday, August 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47699-47702]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19581]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0019; Notice 2]

Utilimaster Corporation, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Petition Denial.

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

SUMMARY: Utilimaster Corporation (Utilimaster),\1\ has determined that
certain model year 2009-2011 Utilimaster walk-in van-type trucks
manufactured between September 1, 2009 and December 22, 2011 do not
comply with paragraph S4.2.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 206, Door Locks and Door Retention Components. Utilimaster
filed an appropriate report dated December 30, 2011, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Utilimaster Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Spartan Motors, Inc., is a manufacturer of motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the rule
implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, on January 23, 2012,
Spartan Motors, Inc.,\2\ on behalf of Utilimaster, has petitioned for
an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) published a notice of receipt of the petition,
with a 30-day public comment period, on February 17, 2012, in the
Federal Register (77 FR 9726). The only comments received were from
Morgan Olson, LLC (Morgan Olson).\3\ To view the petition, the
comments, and all supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then
follow the online search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-
2012-0019.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Spartan Motors, Inc., is a manufacturer of motor vehicles.
    \3\ Morgan Olson, LLC, is a manufacturer of motor vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contact Information: For further information on this decision
contact Mr. Tony Lazzaro, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202)
366-5304, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Relevant Requirements of FMVSS No. 206: FMVSS No. 206 paragraph
S4.2.1 requires in pertinent part that each sliding door system shall
be equipped with either: (a) At least one primary door latch system, or
(b) a door latch system with a fully latched position and a door
closure warning system. The door closure warning system shall be
located where it can be clearly seen by the driver.
    A ``primary door latch'' is defined in FMVSS No. 206 paragraph S3
as ``a latch equipped with both a fully latched position and a
secondary latch position and is designated as a `primary door latch' by
the manufacturer.'' A ``secondary latched position'' refers to ``the
coupling condition of the latch that retains the door in a partially
closed position.'' FMVSS No. 206 paragraph S3.
    A ``door closure warning system'' is defined in FMVSS No. 206
paragraph S3 as ``a system that will activate a visual signal when a
door latch system is not in its fully latched position and the vehicle
ignition system is activated.''

    Vehicles involved: Affected are approximately 9,861 Utilimaster
model year 2009-2011 walk-in van-type trucks.
    Noncompliance: Utilimaster states that the noncompliance is that
while the sliding doors on the vehicles are equipped with a door latch
system (but not a ``Primary Door Latch System''), no door closure
warning system, as required by paragraph S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 206, is
installed.
    Summary of Utilimaster's Analysis Arguments: By way of background,
Utilimaster recognizes that the sliding door latch requirements
contained in paragraph S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 206 were adopted in February
2007 as part of a broader upgrade to the Agency's existing door latch
and retention requirements. See Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards;
Door Locks and Door Retention Components, Final Rule, 72 FR 5385 (Feb.
6, 2007) [hereinafter 2007 Final Rule]. The effective date of these
requirements was September l, 2009.
    As set forth in Utilimaster's noncompliance report, Utilimaster
determined that the new latch requirements applied to these vehicles,
but were not designed into vehicles built after the effective date.
(This omission was the result of Utilimaster's previous
misinterpretation as to the applicability of the FMVSS No. 206
amendments to these particular vehicles).
    Utilimaster explains that the sliding doors on the subject vehicles
are equipped with a door latch that does not meet the above-referenced
definition of a ``primary door latch'' because these vehicles lack a
secondary latched position. Thus, these vehicles do not meet the
paragraph S4.2.l(a) compliance option. Moreover, these vehicles are not
equipped with a ``door closure warning system'' and, therefore, they do
not meet the paragraph S4.2.l(b) compliance option. Utilimaster
believes that the omission of a door closure warning system on these
vehicles is inconsequential to safety due to the particular
characteristics of the sliding doors on these vehicles which, in its
view, will immediately provide adequate visual (and audible) feedback
to the driver to alert him or her in the event a door is unlatched.
    Utilimaster further states that the door has approximately 0.315
inches of engagement into the door seal. Therefore, should the sliding
door not be in the latched position, it would be readily apparent to
the driver before the vehicle is driven. Even if the driver did not
notice the gap in the door prior to the vehicle being driven, these
doors would provide immediate visual feedback to the driver as soon as
the vehicle begins to move. The sliding doors on these vehicles are
designed to slide longitudinally on a track when the sliding door
handle is activated and a small force is applied in the same
longitudinal direction. As a consequence, if the sliding door is not
fully closed and latched and the driver is not aware, this condition
would become immediately apparent to the driver when the vehicle is
accelerated from rest, as the sliding door would glide rearward from
the force created by the acceleration. Thus, while these vehicles may
not meet the express requirements of paragraph S4.2.1 or the definition
of a ``door closure warning system,'' Utilimaster asserts they do meet
the intent of these requirements. Utilimaster also argues that the use
of other visual signals, such as a dash-mounted telltale, might be
necessary for vehicles with rear sliding doors, such as minivans or
other passenger vehicles, but the sliding doors on the subject vehicles
are located in the front within plain view of the driver.
    Utilimaster further states that in adopting the upgraded sliding
door standards in 2007, the Agency stated that it was particularly
concerned with children riding in the rear seats of passenger vans
(minivans or ``MPVs'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door
Retention Components, Final Rule, 72 FR 5385, 5387 (Feb. 6, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Utilimaster also states that these vehicles are used exclusively in
commercial applications and are driven exclusively by professional
drivers (primarily without a passenger). Utilimaster states that these
drivers, in addition to having a commercial driver's license, have
undergone highly regimented training programs and must adhere to
corporate safety policies. This training requires that drivers enter
and exit the vehicle from the curb side of the van and fasten the
seatbelt when the vehicle is in motion. The repetitive use of the van
results in highly repeatable results from one stop to the next.
Utilimaster argues that the likelihood that a driver would move the
vehicle with the door left inadvertently open is very low and that the
likelihood that the driver would be ejected from the driver's seat,
through a curb-side door, left unintentionally unlatched, is even less
probable.
    Utilimaster states that it is not aware of a driver or passenger of
its vehicles ever having been ejected from or fallen through an open
sliding cab door while the vehicle was in motion. Utilimaster also
notes that walk-in vans with sliding doors very similar in design to
those on the subject vehicles have been in use for several decades.
    Additionally, Utilimaster argues that the sliding doors on these
vehicles meet all load test and inertial requirements of FMVSS No. 206,
paragraph S4.2, and therefore this noncompliance will not increase the
risk of occupant ejection under conditions addressed by such
requirements.
    In summary, Utilimaster contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt it from providing notification of noncompliance as required by
49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the noncompliance as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    Comments: NHTSA published a notice of the petition in the Federal
Register to allow an opportunity for members of the public to present
information, views, and arguments on the subject petition. As noted
earlier, the only comments received were submitted by Morgan Olson,
also a manufacturer of walk-in van-type trucks. Morgan Olson reported
similar noncompliances with S4.2.1 of FMVSS No. 206 on January 19, 2012
and filed its own Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance on February 10, 2012.\5\ Morgan Olson commented in
support of granting Utilimaster's petition for inconsequentiality.
Morgan Olson echoed Utilimaster's arguments and provided information
similar to that provided by Utilimaster. The Agency notes that an
absence of opposing argument and data does not require the Agency to
grant the petition.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Morgan Olson, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 77 FR 19055 (Mar. 29, 2012).
    \6\ Dorel Juvenile Group; Denial of Appeal of Decision on
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 75 FR 507, 510 (Jan. 5, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NHTSA'S Consideration of Utilimaster's Inconsequentiality Petition

    General Principles: Federal motor vehicle safety standards are
adopted only after the Agency has determined, following notice and
comment, that the standards are objective and practicable and ``meet
the need for motor vehicle safety.'' See 49 U.S.C. 30111(a). Thus,
there is a general presumption that the failure of a motor vehicle or
item of motor vehicle equipment to comply with a FMVSS increases the
risk to motor vehicle safety beyond the level deemed appropriate by
NHTSA through the rulemaking process. To protect the public from such
risks, manufacturers whose products fail to comply with an FMVSS are
normally required to

conduct a safety recall under which they must notify owners,
purchasers, and dealers of the noncompliance and provide a remedy
without charge. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120. However, Congress has recognized
that, under some limited circumstances, a noncompliance could be
``inconsequential'' to motor vehicle safety. ``Inconsequential'' is not
defined either in the statute or in NHTSA's regulations. Rather, the
Agency determines whether a particular noncompliance is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety based on the specific facts before it. The
relevant issue in determining inconsequentiality is whether the
noncompliance in question is likely to significantly increase the
safety risk to individuals of accidents or to individual occupants who
experience the type of injurious event against which the standard was
designed to protect. See General Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897 (Apr. 14,
2004).
    There have been instances in the past where NHTSA has determined
that a manufacturer has met its burden of demonstrating that a
noncompliance is inconsequential to safety, such as noncompliances
concerning labeling where the discrepancy with the safety standard was
determined not to lead to any misunderstanding, especially where
sources of the correct information were available (e.g. in the vehicle
owner's manual). See General Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004).
    The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard is more substantial
and difficult to meet, and the Agency has not found many such
noncompliances to be inconsequential. Id.
    Utilimaster first argues that the sliding doors are located in the
front of the vehicle, viewable to the driver, and that a small gap will
be apparent to the driver if a door is not fully latched. Moreover,
Utilimaster asserts that even if the driver does not notice the gap in
the door prior to driving the vehicle, as the vehicle begins to move
the door will slide open, alerting the driver.
    FMVSS No. 206 requires that a sliding door system be equipped with
either (a) at least one primary door latch system, or (b) a door latch
system with a fully latched position and a door closure warning system.
Since the noncompliant vehicles are equipped with a door latch system
with a fully latched position (but not a primary door latch system), in
order to comply with FMVSS No. 206 the vehicles would also need to have
a door closure warning system. Such a system is automatic and does not
require the driver to make observations of the door. The subject
vehicles do not have such a system. Without a warning system, the
driver would have to look away from driving to see a door gap. The
Agency does not consider a door gap to be a sufficient alert to the
driver that the door is not fully latched.
    The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the 2007 amendments to FMVSS
No. 206 explained the scope of the safety risks associated with the
ejection of vehicle occupants through vehicle doors. See Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standards; Door Locks and Door Retention Components and
Side Impact Protection, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 69 FR 75020,
75024-75025. The Agency noted that ``[d]oor ejections, due to non-
rollover door openings, account for 23 percent of the total non-
rollover ejections with known routes * * * [and of] those ejected
through a sliding door, each year approximately 20 people are killed
and 30 people are seriously injured, based on the 1995-2003 data from
NASS.'' Id. Based on this safety risk analysis, the Agency concluded
that ``this exposure is [not] acceptable when measures can be taken to
minimize the likelihood that a sliding door would open in a crash.'' 69
FR 75025. Accordingly, the Agency proposed the FMVSS No. 206 side
sliding door latch requirements to ``assure vehicle occupants that a
sliding door is completely closed.'' 69 FR 75026.
    Utilimaster's arguments in support of its petition do not allay
these safety concerns. Utilimaster's petition acknowledges that the
vehicle driver may not notice the small gap in the door before the
vehicle begins to move. Moreover, having the door unexpectedly slide
open while the vehicle is driven can create a potential distraction to
the driver, especially considering any attempts by the driver to close
the door while the vehicle is in motion. In addition, accidents can
occur even at low speeds when a vehicle is accelerated into motion, and
may include impact with another vehicle including a vehicle moving at
higher speed. Therefore, in light of these safety risks, the Agency
finds that the door gap on the subject vehicles is not an acceptable
replacement for a door closure warning system.
    Utilimaster also asserts that the subject vehicles are exclusively
commercial in application and that the drivers of these vehicles are
highly trained and must adhere to corporate-mandated safety practices.
Utilimaster asserts that the sliding door standards were ``particularly
concerned with children riding in the rear seats of passenger vans.''
The Agency believes that corporate operating policies and training do
not preclude driver error (inadvertent or otherwise), such as operating
the vehicle with the door left inadvertently open or not fastening an
occupant's safety belt. Although the Agency did note in the NPRM that
it was ``[a]dditionally * * * concerned that the individuals with the
greatest exposure to sliding door failures are children,'' 69 FR 75025,
the Agency never indicated that child passenger safety was the only
safety concern addressed by the standard. Moreover, while Utilimaster
states that the subject vehicles are driven primarily without a
passenger, Utilimaster's petition implicitly acknowledges that a
passenger may be present. In short, the Agency believes that there are
valid concerns that occupants of the subject vehicles are exposed to an
increased risk of accidents and injuries, particularly those associated
with occupant ejection, compared to occupants of compliant vehicles.
    Utilimaster also states that it is not aware of a driver or
passenger of its vehicles ever having been ejected from or fallen
through an open sliding cab door while the vehicle was in motion.
However, the Agency is aware of at least one occupant ejection through
an open sliding side door of a commercial vehicle similar to those that
are the subject of this petition. A walk-in van-type delivery truck was
involved in an accident in 2009 at an intersection in Florida in which
the driver of the delivery truck was ejected through an open sliding
side door and sustained injuries. The delivery truck, after being
stopped at a stop sign, entered the intersection and struck the side of
a crossing vehicle causing the vehicles to become engaged and spin
together. The delivery truck driver, who was not wearing a safety belt,
was ejected into the roadway.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles;
HSMV Crash Report Number 90163273, dated January 6, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, Utilimaster asserts that the sliding doors on these
vehicles meet all load tests and inertial requirements of FMVSS No. 206
S4.2 and therefore, the noncompliance will not increase the risk of
occupant ejection under conditions addressed by such requirements. This
argument, however, is inapplicable to the issue at hand because these
standards do not address the performance of an unlatched door.

See, e.g. 49 CFR 571.206 S<IP_ADDRESS>(a), S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) and S<IP_ADDRESS>(a)
(discussing testing when the door latch is in the fully latched
position).
    Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that
the petitioner has not met its burden of persuasion that the
noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Utilimaster's petition is hereby denied, and the
petitioner must notify owners, purchasers and dealers pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118 and provide a remedy in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30120.
    If Utilimaster believes that vehicles it will produce in the future
should not be subject to any currently applicable FMVSS No. 206
requirements, Utilimaster may consider petitioning the Agency for
rulemaking. The appropriate type of petition to request a change in a
rule is one filed under 49 CFR part 552 Petitions for Rulemaking,
Defect, and Non-Compliance Orders.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: August 2, 2012.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2012-19581 Filed 8-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P