[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 83591-83592]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28223]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2077]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before March 22, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2077, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be

considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Monroe County, Florida and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 15-04-4157S Preliminary Date: December 27, 2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Key Colony Beach...............  Building and Planning
                                          Department, 600 West Ocean
                                          Drive, Key Colony Beach, FL
                                          33051.
City of Key West.......................  Building Department, 1300 White
                                          Street, Key West, FL 33040.
City of Layton.........................  Layton Building Department,
                                          68260 Overseas Highway, Long
                                          Key, FL 33001.
City of Marathon.......................  Planning Department, 9805
                                          Overseas Highway, Marathon, FL
                                          33050.
Unincorporated Areas of Monroe County..  Monroe County Building and
                                          Permitting Department, 2798
                                          Overseas Highway, Suite 300,
                                          Marathon, FL 33050.
Village of Islamorada..................  Building and Planning
                                          Department, 86800 Overseas
                                          Highway, Islamorada, FL 33036.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Jones County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 11-04-7660S Preliminary Date: November 30, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Jones County...  Jones County Government Office,
                                          418 Highway 58 North, Trenton,
                                          NC 28585.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Tyrrell County, North Carolina and Incorporated Areas
        Project: 11-04-8218S Preliminary Date: November 30, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Tyrrell County.  Tyrrell County Planning
                                          Department, 108 South Water
                                          Street, Columbia, NC 27925.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-28223 Filed 12-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 209 (Monday, October 29, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54239-54241]
[FR Doc No: 2018-23562]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0230; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-26]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Air Traffic Service (ATS) Routes in the Vicinity of
Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies two VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)
Federal airways (V-217 and V-228) in the vicinity of the Chicago O'Hare
International Airport, IL. The FAA is taking this action due to the
planned decommissioning of the Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/Distance
Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid (NAVAID), which provides
navigation guidance for portions of the affected ATS routes.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, January 3, 2019. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting

Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would amend the route structure in the National
Airspace System as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of
air traffic.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2018-0230 (83 FR 17327; April 19,
2018) to amend VOR Federal airways V-217 and V-228 due to the planned
decommissioning of the Chicago O'Hare, IL, VOR/DME. Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal. One substantive comment was received.
    The commenter stated that based on the current navigation maps it
appeared the proposed change/modification had already taken place since
there were no airways connected to the Chicago O'Hare VOR.
Additionally, the commenter shared that V-228 was defined by the
Northbrook VOR and that the proposed change/modification was confusing
since the proposed rule was scheduled to take place in June 2018, but
it was their understanding that the route(s) had already changed. The
commenter also stated they found the proposed regulation to be accurate
and useful since space-based global navigation satellite systems (GNSS)
are replacing VORs and other ground-based systems.
    In response, the FAA offers the following. Review of the Instrument
Flight Rules (IFR) Enroute Low Altitude Chart showing the Chicago
terminal area does reflect there are no VOR Federal airways connected
to the Chicago O'Hare VOR; however, that lack of airways is pre-
existing and not the result of this proposed rulemaking action. The
commenter is correct that V-228 uses the Northbrook VOR in its
description, but the V-228 airway segment proposed for amendment was
the portion between the BESIE fix and FARMM fix, which is defined using
the Chicago O'Hare VOR 316[deg](T)/314[deg](M) radial and is located
northwest of the Northbrook VOR. Lastly, the commenter's confusion that
the proposed rule was scheduled to take place in June 2018 was a simple
misunderstanding that the June 4, 2018, date listed in the NPRM
identified the end of the public comment period, not the effective date
of the proposed amendments.
    The NPRM stated that the Chicago O'Hare VOR/DME is being
decommissioned to facilitate the construction of a new runway at
Chicago O'Hare International Airport. In the 2005 Record of Decision
(ROD) for the O'Hare Modernization Program and the Final Environmental
Impact Statement, the FAA had planned to move the VOR to allow for the
construction of a new runway. Subsequent to that ROD, the FAA initiated
a plan for reducing the number of VORs.
    On December 15, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed policy and request for comments (76 FR 77939) on the
FAA's proposed strategy for gradually reducing the current VOR network
to a Minimum Operational Network (MON) as the National Airspace System
(NAS) transitions to performance-based navigation (PBN) as part of the
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). The FAA reviewed
all comments received and on August 21, 2012, published in the Federal
Register the disposition of the comments on the notice of proposed
policy (77 FR 50420). In considering and disposing of the comments, the
FAA noted that it would develop an initial VOR MON Plan which would be
made publicly available.
    On July 26, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register the VOR
MON final policy statement (81 FR 48694) announcing the discontinuance
selection criteria and candidate list of VOR navigational aids targeted
for discontinuance as part of the VOR MON Implementation Program and
NAS Efficient Streamline Services Initiative. This action is part of
that national strategy.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order
7400.11C dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15, 2018, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways
listed in this document would be subsequently published in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-217 and
V-228 due to the planned decommissioning of the Chicago O'Hare, IL,
VOR/DME. The VOR Federal airway changes are described below.
    V-217: V-217 extends between the intersection of the Chicago
O'Hare, IL, 316[deg]/DuPage, IL, 359[deg] and Northbrook, IL, 291[deg]
radials (FARMM fix) and the Winnipeg, MB, Canada, VOR/Tactical Air
Navigation (VORTAC). The airway segment between the intersection of the
Chicago O'Hare, IL, 316[deg]/DuPage, IL, 359[deg] and Northbrook, IL,
291[deg] radials (FARMM fix) and the intersection of the Chicago O'Hare
316[deg] and Badger, WI, 193[deg] radials (BESIE fix) is removed.
Additionally, the BESIE fix is amended in the airway description to
describe it as the intersection of the Madison, WI, 138[deg] and the
Badger, WI, 193[deg] radials, and the spelling of the Winnipeg VORTAC
name is corrected from ``Winnepeg'' to ``Winnipeg.'' The

unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as charted.
    V-228: V-228 extends between the Dells, WI, VORTAC and the Gipper,
MI, VORTAC. The airway segment between the intersection of the Madison,
WI, 138[deg] and Chicago O'Hare, IL, 316[deg] radials (BESIE fix) and
the intersection of the Chicago O'Hare, IL, 316[deg] and Northbrook,
IL, 291[deg] radials (FARMM fix) is removed. Additionally, the BESIE
fix is amended in the airway description to describe it as the
intersection of the Madison, WI, 138[deg] and the Badger, WI, 193[deg]
radials, and the FARMM fix will be amended in the airway description to
describe it as the intersection of the DuPage, IL, 359[deg] and the
Northbrook, IL, 291[deg] radial. The unaffected portions of the
existing airway remain as charted.
    All radials in the route descriptions below are stated in True
degrees.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal
airways V-217 and V-228 near the Chicago O'Hare International Airport,
IL, qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR
part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically
excludes from further environmental impact review rulemaking actions
that designate or modify classes of airspace areas, airways, routes,
and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C,
D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting
Points). As such, this action is not expected to result in any
potentially significant environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA
Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the
FAA has reviewed this action for factors and circumstances in which a
normally categorically excluded action may have a significant
environmental impact requiring further analysis. The FAA has determined
that no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of
an environmental assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018 and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-217 [Amended]

    From INT Madison, WI, 138[deg] and Badger, WI, 193[deg] radials;
Badger; Green Bay, WI; Rhinelander, WI; Duluth, MN; Hibbing, MN;
Baudette, MN; INT Baudette 313[deg] and Winnipeg, MB, Canada,
117[deg] radials; to Winnipeg. The airspace within Canada is
excluded. In addition, the portion of this airway that lies within
the Beaver MOA is excluded when the Beaver MOA is active.
* * * * *

V-228 [Amended]

    From Dells, WI; Madison, WI; to INT Madison 138[deg] and Badger,
WI, 193[deg] radials. From INT DuPage, IL, 359[deg] and Northbrook,
IL, 291[deg] radials; Northbrook; INT Northbrook 110[deg] and
Gipper, MI, 290[deg] radials; to Gipper.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 24, 2018.
Rodger A. Dean Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2018-23562 Filed 10-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 28, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13322-13323]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06294]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:  To be published.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:  Thursday, March 29,
2018 at 2:00 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING:  The Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
March 29, 2018 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact Brent J. Fields of the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: March 23, 2018.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-06294 Filed 3-26-18; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 78)]
[Notices]
[Page 21056-21058]
[DOCID:fr24ap06-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53666; File No. SR-Amex-2005-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1 and 2
To Amend Exchange Delisting Rules To Conform to Recent Amendments to
Commission Rules Regarding Removal From Listing and Withdrawal From
Registration

April 17, 2006.

I. Introduction

    On October 24, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') 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 amend Exchange delisting rules to conform to
recent amendments to Commission rules regarding removal from listing
and withdrawal from registration. On October 27, 2005, Amex filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\3\ On February 1, 2006,
Amex filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\4\ The proposed
rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the Federal
Register on March 13, 2006.\5\ No comments were received regarding the
proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 1 replaced the original proposed rule change
in its entirety.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 2, Amex added footnotes to the Form 19b-4
and Exhibit 1 that reference appropriate sections of the Amex
Company Guide; made grammatical corrections to the proposed rule
text regarding the final effective date of the old Amex rules; and
clarified the circumstances under which the Exchange is authorized
to file a Form 25 for certain corporate actions.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53398 (March 2,
2006), 71 FR 12738.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    Section 12 of the Act \6\ and Rule 12d2-2 thereunder \7\ (``SEC
Rule 12d2-2'') govern the process for the delisting and deregistration
of securities listed on national securities exchanges. Recent
amendments to SEC Rule 12d2-2 (``amended SEC Rule 12d2-2'') and other
Commission rules require the electronic filing of revised Form 25 on
the Commission's Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval
(``EDGAR'') system by exchanges and issuers for all delistings, other
than delistings of standardized options and securities futures, which
are exempted.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78l.
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.12d2-2.
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52029 (July 14,
2005), 70 FR 42456 (July 22, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Amex proposes to revise Amex Rule 18 and sections 1010, 1011,
1201, 1202, 1203, 1204, 1205 and 1206 of the Amex Company Guide with
respect to delisting procedural requirements as mandated by recent
amendments to SEC Rule 12d2-2.
    In the case of exchange-initiated delistings, amended SEC Rule
12d2-2(b) states that a national securities exchange may file an
application on Form 25 to strike a class of securities from listing
and/or withdraw the registration of such securities, in accordance with
its rules,

if the rules of such exchange, at a minimum, provide for: \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See also Form 8-K (Item 3.01. Notice of Delisting or Failure
to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of
Listing), which sets forth disclosure requirements for issuers that
do not satisfy listing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Notice to the issuer of the exchange's decision to delist its
securities;
    (ii) An opportunity for appeal to the exchange's board of
directors, or to a committee designated by the board; and
    (iii) Public notice of the national securities exchange's final
determination to remove the security from listing and/or registration,
by issuing a press release and posting notice on its Web site. Public
notice must be disseminated no fewer than 10 days before the delisting
becomes effective pursuant to amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(d)(1), and must
remain posted on its Web site until the delisting is effective.
    With respect to the above requirements set forth in amended SEC
Rule 12d2-2(b), Amex rules currently provide the requisite issuer
notice as well as an opportunity for appeal to a committee designated
by the Board.\10\ Amex rules do not currently provide for the mandated
public notice, and accordingly the Amex is proposing changes to section
1010(c) of the Amex Company Guide to incorporate such public notice as
required by the recent amendments to SEC Rule 12d2-2(b). The proposed
changes do not impact the Amex's existing authority to suspend trading
in an issuer's securities following an adverse panel decision but prior
to the filing of a delisting application and/or effective date of a
delisting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Amex Company Guide, Section 1202 (Written Notice of
Staff Determination) and section 1203 (Request for Hearing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of an issuer-initiated delisting, Amex proposes
revisions to Amex Rule 18 and section 1010 of the Amex Company Guide,
as mandated, to require the issuer to:
    (i) Comply with the Exchange's rules for delisting and applicable
state laws;
    (ii) Submit written notice to the Exchange, no fewer than ten days
before filing a Form 25, of its intent to withdraw its security, which
notice includes a statement of all material facts relating to the
reasons for filing the application (effectively, this notice to the
Exchange will be provided at least 20 days before the delisting becomes
effective); and
    (iii) Issue public notice of its intent to delist via a press
release, and, if it has a publicly available Web site, by posting the
notice on that Web site, contemporaneously with providing written
notice to the exchange and keeping it posted until the delisting is
effective.
    In addition, changes are proposed to Amex Rule 18 to require that
the board of directors (or comparable governing body) of an issuer
initiating the delisting of its securities must approve the decision to
delist, and that the issuer provide the Exchange with a certified copy
of the relevant board resolution prior to filing the Form 25. The
issuer must notify the Exchange that it has filed Form 25 with the
Commission contemporaneously with such filing.
    The Amex also proposes that an issuer seeking to voluntarily apply
to withdraw a class of securities from listing on the Exchange that has
received notice from the Exchange that it is below the Exchange's
continued listing policies and standards, or that is aware that it is
below such continued listing policies and standards notwithstanding
that it has not received such notice from the Exchange, must disclose
that it is no longer eligible for continued listing (including the
specific continued listing policies and standards that the issue is
below) in: (i) Its statement of all material facts relating to the
reasons for withdrawal from listing provided to the Exchange along with
written notice of its determination to withdraw from listing required
by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(ii) and; (ii) its public press release
and Web site notice required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(iii).
    Further, as required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(3), the Amex
represents that it will post notice of issuer-initiated delistings on
its Web site beginning on the business day following receipt of notice
from the issuer, and it will keep the notice posted until the delisting
becomes effective. As in the case of an exchange-initiated delisting,
the Amex will retain the ability to suspend trading in an issuer's
securities, in order to accommodate its transfer to another
marketplace, prior to the effective date of the delisting.
    Finally, Amex has made changes in its rules to clarify that the
Form 25 serves as the application to remove a security from listing
and/or registration and to specify that the proposed changes will be
effective as of April 24, 2006 as required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2.

III. Discussion

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange \11\ and, in
particular, the requirements of section 6 of the Act.\12\ Specifically,
as discussed below, the Commission finds that the proposal is
consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ which requires, in
part, that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, and processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Further, as noted in more
detail below, the changes being adopted by Amex meet the requirements
of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Exchange Delisting

    Amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b) states that a national securities
exchange may file an application on Form 25 to strike a class of
securities from listing and/or withdraw the registration of such
securities, in accordance with its rules, if the rules of such
exchange, at a minimum, provide for notice to the issuer of the
exchange's decision to delist, opportunity for appeal, and public
notice of the exchange's final determination to delist. The Commission
believes that Amex's current rules and proposal comply with the
dictates of amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(b).
    Amex rules currently provide the requisite issuer notice as well as
an opportunity for appeal to a committee designated by the Board.\14\
Specifically, issuers may appeal staff delisting determinations to
panel of at least two members of the Committee on Securities, which is
a board-appointed committee.\15\ Adverse panel decisions may be
appealed to the Committee on Securities.\16\ In addition, the Board may
in its discretion call any Committee on Securities decision for
review.\17\ In addition, the proposed rule change will provide for
public notice of the Exchange's final determination to

remove the security from listing and/or registration. The Commission
notes that the proposed changes do not impact the Amex's existing
authority to suspend trading in an issuer's securities following an
adverse panel decision but prior to the filing of a delisting
application and/or effective date of a delisting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 10.
    \15\ See Amex Company Guide, section 1204 (The Listing
Qualifications Panel).
    \16\ See Amex Company Guide, section 1205 (Review by the Amex
Committee on Securities).
    \17\ See Amex Company Guide, section 1206 (Discretionary Review
by Amex Board).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Issuer Voluntary Delisting

    In the case of an issuer-initiated delisting, Amex is proposing
revisions to Amex Rule 18 and section 1010 of the Amex Company Guide,
as mandated, to require the issuer to:
    (i) Comply with the Exchange's rules for delisting and applicable
state laws;
    (ii) Submit written notice to the Exchange, no fewer than ten days
before filing a Form 25, of its intent to withdraw its security, which
notice includes a statement of all material facts relating to the
reasons for filing the application (effectively, this notice to the
Exchange will be provided at least 20 days before the delisting becomes
effective); and
    (iii) Issue public notice of its intent to delist via a press
release, and, if it has a publicly available Web site, by posting the
notice on that Web site, contemporaneously with providing written
notice to the exchange and keeping it posted until the delisting is
effective.
    The Commission believes that the amendments will fully inform
issuers of the requirements for voluntary delisting of their securities
under Amex rules and federal securities laws.
    The proposal also sets forth a new requirement not in amended SEC
Rule 12d2-2 that would require the issuer to notify the Exchange that
it has filed Form 25 with the Commission contemporaneously with such
filing. This requirement will allow the Exchange to be fully informed
of the actual filing of a Form 25 and prepare to take timely action in
accordance with the filing of the Form.
    In addition, Amex has proposed a new requirement that the board of
directors (or comparable governing body) of an issuer initiating the
delisting of its securities must approve the decision to delist and
that the issuer provide the Exchange with a certified copy of the
relevant board resolution. The Commission believes that these
requirements may help ensure that the decision to delist a security
voluntarily has been well-considered by the issuer's board.
    Amex also proposes that an issuer seeking to voluntarily apply to
withdraw a class of securities from listing on the Exchange that has
received notice from the Exchange that it is below the Exchange's
continued listing policies and standards, or that is aware that it is
below such continued listing policies and standards notwithstanding
that it has not received such notice from the Exchange, must disclose
that it is no longer eligible for continued listing (including the
specific continued listing policies and standards that the issue is
below) in: (i) Its statement of all material facts relating to the
reasons for withdrawal from listing provided to the Exchange along with
written notice of its determination to withdraw from listing required
by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(ii) and; (ii) its public press release
and Web site notice required by amended SEC Rule 12d2-2(c)(2)(iii). The
Commission believes that this requirement will allow shareholders to be
informed and aware that the issuer has failed to meet Exchange listing
standards and is voluntarily delisting. Issuers will therefore not be
permitted to delist voluntarily without public disclosure of their
noncompliance with Exchange listing standards.
    The Commission notes that Amex represents that it will, as required
by the revised Commission rules, post notice of issuer-initiated
delistings on its Web site beginning on the business day following
receipt of notice from the issuer, and it will keep the notice posted
until the delisting becomes effective. The Commission also notes that,
as in the case of an exchange-initiated delisting, the Amex will retain
the ability to suspend trading in an issuer's securities, in order to
accommodate its transfer to another marketplace, prior to the effective
date of the delisting.

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\18\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-Amex-2005-107), as
amended, is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6078 Filed 4-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 81 (Thursday, April 29, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22686-22688]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08948]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0363]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Prescription Drug Advertising

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on information collection associated with
prescription drug advertising.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by June 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before June 28, 2021. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of June 28, 2021. Comments received
by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2021-N-0363 for ``Prescription Drug Advertising.'' Received
comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice

of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Prescription Drug Advertising--21 CFR Part 202

OMB Control Number 0910-0686--Extension

    This information collection supports Agency regulations and
associated guidance. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protects
the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security
of a wide range of products. We also help consumers get accurate,
science-based information they need to use medicines appropriately and
improve their health. Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 331) prohibits the misbranding
of FDA-regulated products, including prescription drugs. Section 502 of
the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352) requires that manufacturers, packers, and
distributors, or anyone acting on their behalf (firms) include certain
information in human prescription drug promotional labeling and
advertisements.
    Our prescription drug advertising regulations in part 202 (21 CFR
part 202) describe requirements and standards for print and broadcast
advertisements. Section 202.1 applies to advertisements published in
journals, magazines, other periodicals, and newspapers, and
advertisements broadcast through media such as radio, television, and
telephone communication systems. Print advertisements must include a
brief summary of each of the risk concepts from the product's approved
package labeling (Sec.  202.1(e)(1)). Advertisements that are broadcast
through media such as television, radio, or telephone communications
systems must disclose the major risks from the product's package
labeling in either the audio or audio and visual parts of the
presentation (Sec.  202.1(e)(1)); this disclosure is known as the
``major statement.'' If a broadcast advertisement omits the major
statement, or if the major statement minimizes the risks associated
with the use of the drug, the advertisement could render the drug
misbranded in violation of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(n) and section
201 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(n)), and FDA's implementing
regulations at Sec.  202.1(e).
    Section 202.1(e)(6) provides for certain waivers. The waiver
request must set forth clearly and concisely the petitioner's interest
in the advertisement, the specific provision of Sec.  202.1(e)(6) from
which a waiver is sought, a complete copy of the advertisement, and a
showing that the advertisement is not false, lacking in fair balance or
otherwise misleading, or otherwise violative of section 502(n) of the
FD&C Act.
    Under Sec.  202.1(j)(1), a sponsor must submit advertisements to
FDA for prior approval before dissemination if: (1) The sponsor or FDA
has received information that has not been widely publicized in medical
literature that the use of the drug may cause fatalities or serious
damage; (2) FDA has notified the sponsor that the information must be
part of the advertisements for the drug; and (3) the sponsor has failed
to present to FDA a program for assuring that such information will be
publicized promptly and adequately to the medical profession in
subsequent advertisements, or if such a program has been presented to
FDA but is not being followed by the sponsor.
    Under Sec.  202.1(j)(1)(iii), a sponsor must provide to FDA a
program for assuring that significant new adverse information about the
drug that becomes known (i.e., use of drug may cause fatalities or
serious damage) will be publicized promptly and adequately to the
medical profession in any subsequent advertisements. Under Sec.
202.1(j)(4), a sponsor may voluntarily submit advertisements to FDA for
comment prior to publication.
    While the regulations establish requirements for prescription drug
advertisements, we have developed the guidance document entitled,
``Product Name Placement, Size, and Prominence in Promotional Labeling
and Advertisements; Guidance for Industry'' to clarify requirements for
product name placement, size, prominence, and frequency in promotional
labeling and advertisements for human and animal prescription drugs and
prescription biological products. The guidance includes recommendations
that pertain to traditional print promotional labeling and
advertisements (e.g., journal ads, detail aids, brochures), audiovisual
promotional labeling (e.g., videos shown in a health care provider's
office), broadcast advertisements (e.g., television advertisements,
radio advertisements), and electronic and computer-based promotions
(e.g., internet, social media, emails, CD-ROMs, DVDs). The guidance
document was issued consistent with our Good Guidance Practice
regulations in part 10.115 which provide for public comment at any
time, and is available from our website at: https://www.fda.gov/media/87202/download.
    We estimate the burden of the information collection as follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of
    21 CFR section; activity         Number of     responses per   Total annual      Hours per      Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CDER Regulated Products:
    202.1(e)(6); waiver request.               1               1               1              12              12
    202.1(j)(1); submission of                 1               1               1               2               2
     advertisement..............
    202.1(j)(1)(iii); assuring                 1               1               1              12              12
     that adverse information be
     publicized.................
    202.1(j)(4); voluntary                    59            1.85             109              20           2,180
     submission of ad to FDA....
CBER Regulated Products:
    202.1(e)(6); waiver request.               1               1               1              12              12
    202.1(j)(1); submission of                 1               1               1               2               2
     advertisement..............

    202.1(j)(1)(iii); assuring                 1               1               1              12              12
     that adverse information be
     publicized.................
    202.1(j)(4); voluntary                     7            2.57              18              20             360
     submission of ad to FDA....
CVM Regulated Products:
    202.1(e)(6); waiver request.               1               1               1              12              12
    202.1(j)(1); submission of                 1               1               1               2               2
     advertisement..............
    202.1(j)(1)(iii); assuring                 1               1               1              12              12
     that adverse information be
     publicized.................
    202.1(j)(4); voluntary                     7               1               7              20             140
     submission of ad to FDA....
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total...................  ..............  ..............             143  ..............           2,758
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.

    Our estimate of burden we attribute to the reporting provisions in
part 202 is based on our experience with the collection and a review of
Agency data.

                           Table 2--Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Number of
   21 CFR section;  activity        Number of    disclosures per   Total annual     Burden per      Total hours
                                   respondents      respondent      disclosures     disclosure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
202.1; ad prepared in                       670           111.08          74,425             400      29,770,000
 accordance with part 202......
202.1(j)(1); info. included re.               1                1               1              40              40
 fatalities or serious damage..
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total......................  ..............  ...............          74,426  ..............      29,770,040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
\2\ Numbers rounded to the nearest one/one-hundredth.

    Under Sec.  202.1, advertisements for human and animal prescription
drug and biological products must comply with the standards described
in that section. Under Sec.  202.1(j)(1), if information that the use
of a prescription drug may cause fatalities or serious damage has not
been widely publicized in the medical literature, a sponsor must
include such information in the advertisements for that drug. Based on
a review of Agency data we estimate an average of 29,770,040 hours is
incurred annually by respondents in complying with third-party
disclosure requirements for prescription drug advertising. We assume a
placeholder of 1 for disclosures under Sec.  202.1(j)(1).

                    Table 3--Estimated Annual Disclosure Burden Discussed in Agency Guidance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Average
     Information collection         Number of       Number of      Total annual     burden per
        recommendations            respondents   disclosures per    disclosures     disclosure      Total hours
                                                    respondent                      (in hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product name placement, size,               715            190.3         136,069               3         408,207
 and prominence in promotional
 labeling and advertisements'
 disclosures...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The placement, size, prominence, and frequency of the proprietary
and established names for human prescription drugs, including
prescription biological products, and animal prescription drugs are
specified in labeling and advertising regulations (Sec. Sec.  201.10(g)
and (h); 202.1(b), (c), and (d)). Based on Agency data, we estimate
that, for human and animal prescription drugs and prescription
biological products, an average of 715 firms disseminate approximately
136,069 advertisements and promotional pieces each year. We assume that
the burden associated with complying with the regulatory requirements
discussed in the guidance would be approximately 3 hours per response.
    We have adjusted our estimate upward by 11,705,225 hours annually
to reflect increases in prescription drug advertisements and associated
disclosures.

    Dated: April 22, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-08948 Filed 4-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: May 17, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 95)]
[Notices]
[Page 27893-27895]
[DOCID:fr17my07-133]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55742; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval to a Proposed Rule Change as Modified by Amendment No. 1
Relating to the Waiver of Certain Listing Fees

May 10, 2007.

I. Introduction

    On February 22, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposal to waive certain listing fees. The proposal
was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 14, 2007.\3\
The Commission received no comments on the proposal. The Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 with the Commission on April 27, 2007.\4\ This order
provides notice of and solicits comment on the proposed rule change as
modified by Amendment No. 1 and approves the proposal on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55421 (March 14,
2007), 72 FR 1350 (the ``Notice'').
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 (i) Proposed a clarifying change to the
proposed rule text and (ii) added language to the purpose section to
clarify the effect of the waiver of listing fees for a company
listing its primary class of common stock that is not listed on a
national securities exchange but is registered under the Act. The
text of Amendment No. 1 is available on the Exchange's Web site
(http://www.nyse.com), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,

and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 902.02 of its Listed Company
Manual (the ``Manual'') to provide that there shall be no initial
listing fee applicable to (i) Any company listing upon emergence from
bankruptcy, or (ii) any company listing its primary class of common
stock that is not listed on a national securities exchange but is
registered under the Act.
    The Exchange also proposes a temporary cap on fees payable by
companies listing upon emergence from bankruptcy. Annual fees for such
issuers will be billed at a rate of one-fourth of the applicable annual
fee rate for the fiscal quarter the issuer lists and for each of the
succeeding 12 full fiscal quarters. Further, the total fees (including
initial listing fees and annual fees) that may be billed to such an
issuer during this period would be subject to a $25,000 cap in the
fiscal quarter in which the issuer lists and in each of the succeeding
12 full fiscal quarters. The exclusions applicable to the standard fee
cap, set forth in Section 902.02 under the heading ``Total Maximum Fee
Payable in a Calendar Year,'' would also apply to issuers listing upon
emergence from bankruptcy.
    The Exchange believes that the initial listing fee waiver and fee
cap for companies listing upon emergence from bankruptcy are justified
by the unique circumstances of those issuers, which, according to the
NYSE, among other things, tend to be more sensitive to the initial and
continued costs associated with listing because of the desire in
bankruptcy proceedings to ensure creditors are paid as much as
possible. According to the Exchange, because bankrupt companies face
unique challenges in the listing process, the number of companies that
will benefit from the fee waiver and lower fee cap applicable to
bankrupt companies will be very limited, and the fee cap will apply
only during a three-year transitional period, the Exchange does not
believe that the treatment this proposal would afford to bankrupt
companies constitutes an inequitable or unfairly discriminatory
allocation of fees.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that waiving initial listing
fees for a company listing its primary class of common stock which is
registered under that Act but not listed on a national securities
exchange is appropriate and does not constitute an inequitable or
unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees. The Exchange anticipates
that most companies taking advantage of this waiver will be formerly-
listed companies that were delisted as a result of a failure to timely
file annual reports with the Commission.\5\ The Exchange notes that
these companies usually seek to re-list on the Exchange as soon as
their filings are up to date.\6\ According to the Exchange, because
such companies had previously paid initial listing fees to the Exchange
or to another national securities exchange, the Exchange believes that
to make them pay these fees again would further penalize them
unnecessarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange stated that there may
occasionally be an initial listing on the Exchange of a company
which is trading in the over-the-counter market immediately prior to
listing and which was not previously delisted as a result of a
failure to timely file annual reports with the Commission. However,
in the Exchange's experience, very few such companies meet the
Exchange's listing requirements and, therefore, the Exchange expects
the number of such listings and the related loss of fee revenue to
be immaterial.
    \6\ In its filing, the Exchange stated that typically, such
companies are otherwise in good standing with the Exchange or with
another national securities exchange, but fell behind on their
reporting obligations under the Act because their auditors or the
Commission required restatements of their financial statements. The
Commission notes that the timely filing of accurate financial
reports under the Act is critical to investors and our national
market and assures that investors receive up to date financial
information about listed companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has represented that the proposed rule change would
not affect its commitment of resources to its regulatory oversight of
the listing process or its regulatory programs. Companies that benefit
from one of the proposed waivers would be reviewed for compliance with
Exchange listing standards in the same manner as any other company that
applies to be listed on the Exchange. The Exchange would conduct a full
and independent review of each issuer's compliance with the Exchange's
listing standards.
    The Exchange also has represented that it does not expect the
financial impact of this proposed rule change to be material, either in
terms of increased levels of annual fees from transferring issuers or
in terms of diminished initial listing fee revenues. A limited number
of companies are qualified and seek to list on the Exchange that are
either emerging from bankruptcy or have a registered class of common
stock but are not currently listed on another market. Accordingly, the
proposed rule change will not impact the Exchange's resource commitment
to its regulatory oversight

of the listing process or its regulatory programs.
    Following their approval, the Exchange would apply the amendments
contained in the proposal retroactively to February 22, 2007, the date
of filing of the proposed rule change.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See supra note 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\8\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ which
requires that an exchange have rules that provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. The Commission also
finds that the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\10\ which requires, inter alia, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be designed to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and not designed to permit unfair discrimination between issuers. The
Commission has not received any comments on the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f)
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4)
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that companies who re-list upon emerging from
bankruptcy or who re-list upon a return to good standing following
delisting have usually paid listing fees to either the Exchange or to
another national securities exchange at the time of their initial
listing. In addition, with respect to the cap on annual fees for
companies listing upon emergence from bankruptcy, the Commission notes
that the fee cap is a temporary one, designed to enable recently
bankrupt companies to manage the costs associated with listing,
consistent with the desire in bankruptcy proceeding to ensure that
creditors are paid as much as possible. For these reasons, the Exchange
argues, the waiver of listing fees and the cap on annual fees are
equitable.
    The Commission recognizes that, as drafted, the initial fee waiver
would extend to companies that have never listed on a national
securities exchange, which thus have never paid listing fees. In this
regard, the Exchange acknowledges that some companies other than those
returning to good standing after recent delisting--e.g., a company
trading on the over-the-counter market--may seek to take advantage of
the waiver of listing fees for companies not listed on a national
securities exchange but registered under the Act. However, the Exchange
expects the number of such companies eligible for the waiver to be very
small, since very few of these companies would meet the Exchange's
quantitative listing requirements.
    The Commission also notes that the Exchange has represented that
the waiver of listing fees and the cap on annual fees should not have a
material financial impact on the exchange, or impact the Exchange's
resource commitment to its regulatory oversight of the listing process
or its regulatory programs.
    Further, the proposal does not have any impact on whether a company
is actually eligible to list on the Exchange. The Commission expects,
and the Exchange has represented, that a full and independent review of
compliance with listing standards will be conducted for any company
seeking to take advantage of either of the fee waivers, just as for any
company that applies for listing on the Exchange.
    In light of these arguments, the Commission agrees that the
proposed waiver and fee cap, which are retroactively effective to
February 22, 2007, the date of the filing of the proposed rule
change,\11\ do not constitute an inequitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges, do not permit unfair discrimination
between issuers, and are generally consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\12\ the Commission finds
good cause for approving the proposal prior to the thirtieth day after
the publication of the proposal, as modified by Amendment No. 1, in the
Federal Register. The revisions to the proposed rule change made by
Amendment No. 1 do not raise any novel or substantive regulatory
issues, and clarify the proposal. Therefore, the Commission finds good
cause for approving the amended proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments Concerning Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the proposed rule change as modified by Amendment
No. 1, including whether it 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2007-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-19. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2007-19 and should be submitted on or before June
7, 2007.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\13\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2007-19), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9438 Filed 5-16-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25889-25890]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10601]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0305]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Niantic River, Niantic, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Amtrak Railroad Bridge across the Niantic River, mile 0.0, at Niantic,
Connecticut. The deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed
position for 20 nights to facilitate completion of work on machinery
and the lift span.

DATES: This deviation is effective from May 15, 2012 through August 15,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2012-0305 and are available online
at www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2012-0305 in the ``Keyword'' and
then clicking ``Search''. They are also available for inspection or
copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Amtrak Railroad Bridge, across the
Niantic River, mile 0.0, at Niantic, Connecticut, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 16 feet at mean high water. The
drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.215(a).
    The operator of the bridge, National Passenger Railroad Corporation
(Amtrak), requested a temporary deviation from the regulations to
facilitate completion of machinery installation and lift span work at
the new Niantic River RR Bridge. To facilitate completion of the work
at the new bridge, Amtrak has requested a total of 20 nighttime
closures between 11 p.m. through 6 a.m., Monday through Thursday,
beginning May 15, 2012 until August 15, 2012.
    The waterway users are recreational vessels and seasonal fishing
boats.
    Under this temporary deviation the Amtrak Railroad Bridge may
remain in the closed position during the hours of 11 p.m. until 6 a.m.,
Monday through Thursday, beginning May 15, 2012 until August 15, 2012.
The Amtrak Railroad Bridge will require 20 nighttime closures during
this period. The exact calendar dates for the closures have not been
established due to other related construction at the bridge. The exact
closure dates will be published in the Local Notice to Mariners one
week in advance of the closures.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may
do so at all times.
    The waterway users were advised of the requested bridge closure and
offered no objection.

    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time periods. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: April 24, 2012.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-10601 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12546-12548]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04540]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0063; Notice 2]

General Motors, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC, (GM) has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2010-2017 GMC Terrain motor vehicles do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. GM filed a noncompliance
report dated May 15, 2019. GM subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June 7,
2019, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces the
denial of GM's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    GM has determined that certain MY 2010-2017 GMC Terrain motor
vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S10.15.6 and Table XIX of
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment (49
CFR 571.108). GM filed a noncompliance report dated May 15, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. GM subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June 7, 2019, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of GM's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on February 12, 2020, in the Federal Register
(85 FR 8095). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0063.''

II. Equipment and Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 726,959 MY 2010-2017 GMC Terrain motor vehicles
manufactured between May 21, 2009, and July 13, 2017, are potentially
involved.

III. Noncompliance

    GM explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles are
equipped with lower beam headlamps that do not meet the photometry
requirements of paragraph S10.15.6 and Table XIX of FMVSS No. 108.
Specifically, a reflection from the headlamps' housing is directed 80
degrees outboard and 45 degrees upward, as measured from each lamp's
optical axis, which illuminates two small areas high above the vehicle.
When tested by GM, this reflection from a single point on each lamp
measured approximately 450-470 candela (cd). This is more than three
times brighter than the designated maximum of 125 cd at test points
10[deg]U to 90[deg]U, as stated in Table XIX-a.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S10.15.6 and Table XIX of FMVSS No. 108 include the
requirements relevant to this petition. Each replaceable bulb headlamp
must be designed to conform to the photometry requirements of Table
XVIII for upper beam and Table XIX for lower beam as specified in Table
II-d for the specific headlamp unit and aiming method when tested
according to the procedure of paragraph S14.2.5 using any replaceable
light source designated for use in the system under test.

V. Summary of GM's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of GM's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by GM
and do not reflect the views of the Agency. GM described the subject
noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, GM submitted the following reasoning:

    1. The noncompliance caused by this reflection has no effect on
vehicle safety for oncoming or surrounding vehicles. The narrow
reflection in question does not create a safety risk for oncoming or
surrounding drivers, due to the extreme angle of the reflection.
This angle, 80 degrees outboard and 45 degrees upward from each
lamp's optical axis, is far above the range where the reflection
could cause glare for oncoming or surrounding drivers, including the
industry-recognized ``glare points'' referenced in Table XIX of
FMVSS No. 108 at the following

ranges: 0.5[deg]U-1.5[deg]L to L, 1[deg]U-1.5[deg]L to L, 0.5[deg]U-
1[deg]R to R, 1.5[deg]U-[deg]R to R.
    2. The noncompliance caused by this reflection has no effect on
vehicle safety for drivers of the subject vehicles. The areas
illuminated by the narrow reflections in question are not visible to
drivers of the subject vehicles. These two small areas appear high
above the vehicle, one to the far left and the other to the far
right of the vehicle, well outside of the driver's view.
    GM says, while these reflections may be somewhat perceptible in
certain extremely dense fog or snow conditions, there would be no
effect on vehicle safety due to the small size and far outboard
location in the driver's peripheral field of view. GM claims that
any detectable light due to such reflection would be negligible
compared to other outside sources of illumination such as glare from
oncoming traffic or fog glare forward of the vehicle.
    3. GM is aware of only a single customer inquiry associated with
this condition and is not aware of any crashes or injuries. GM
reviewed all relevant field data and found just a single customer
inquiry within the US and Canadian vehicle population of nearly
820,000 vehicles sold, 726,595 of which were sold in the US and
92,747 were sold in Canada, over eight model years. The customer
stated, ``Left head lamp seems to have a portion of the light that
shines up in the trees at near a 45-degree angle.'' GM identified no
other related field reports, including in warranty, Transportation
Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD),
Vehicle Owner Questionnaire (VOQ), and legal data.
    4. GM claims that the headlamps comply with recognized industry
standards. GM cited S6.1.1 of the SAE International Standard J1383,
Performance Requirements for Motor Vehicle Headlamps (May 26, 2010),
which sets forth certain industry-recognized intensity and size
limits on headlamp photometrics. Specifically, for a zone extending
20[deg] left to 20[deg] right, and 10[deg] to 60[deg] up from the
lamp optical axis, the light projected cannot exceed 550 candelas
and cannot occupy more than five percent of the zone's total area.
The reflection from the subject lamps is well outside of this zone.
Even if the reflections were within this zone, the headlamps would
remain compliant, as the reflection would not exceed the maximum of
five percent of the total area or the maximum of 550 candelas.
    5. According to GM, the headlamps comply with applicable
requirements for global regions, including UNECE R1123. S6.2.4 and
Annex 3, Figure B of UNECE R112 specify photometric test points for
the passing beam (i.e., lower beam headlamp). The photometric points
extend to 4[deg] above the lamp optical axis. The subject reflection
is well above those test points.
    6. The subject condition has been corrected for service parts
and does not affect current-generation vehicles. GM is purging all
affected service and replacement headlamps from dealer stock. The
supplier, Stanley, has redesigned service and replacement headlamps
to eliminate the reflections that cause the issue by adding graining
to specific portions of the reflector. At the time of the original
submission, GM projected the redesigned lamps would be available on
June 12, 2019. Current-generation GMC Terrain vehicles (model years
2018 and newer) use a different headlamp design and are not affected
by this condition.

    GM concluded that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety and that its petition to be exempted
from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49
U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply with a performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a
labeling requirement--is more substantial and difficult to meet.
Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such noncompliances
inconsequential.\1\ Potential performance failures of safety-critical
equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are rarely deemed
inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality is
the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\2\ The Safety Act is
preventive, and manufacturers cannot and should not wait for deaths or
injuries to occur in their vehicles before they carry out a recall.
See, e.g., United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977). Indeed, the very purpose of a recall is to protect
individuals from risk. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA does not consider the absence of complaints or injuries to
show that the issue is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly,
the absence of a complaint does not mean there have not been any safety
issues, nor does it mean that there will not be safety issues in the
future.'' \3\ ``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and
swift reaction have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that
good luck will continue to work.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \4\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Motor vehicle headlamps are, among other things, required to
provide forward illumination for driving conditions in a manner that
does not cause safety consequences for the driver of the vehicle, or
other roadway drivers. In particular, this can include sources of glare
caused by light reflected back to the driver or other roadway drivers.
    Paragraph S10.15.6 with Table XIX of FMVSS No. 108 requires a
maximum luminous intensity of 125 cd at test points within the
boundaries of 10[deg]U to 90[deg]U and 90[deg]L to 90[deg]R. GM
explains that in the subject vehicles, the lower beam headlamps have a
reflection from the headlamp housing that is 80 degrees outboard and 45
degrees upward, which when measured has a luminous intensity of 450-470
cd that exceeds the 125 cd limit.
    NHTSA concurs with GM's argument that the operator of the
noncompliant vehicle will not likely be affected as the reflection is
directed outboard. However, NHTSA does not concur with GM's argument
that the narrow reflection has no effect on oncoming or surrounding
vehicles due to its extreme angle. The requirement of having a maximum
of 125 cd at test points 10[deg]U to 90[deg]U and 90[deg]L to 90[deg]R
reduces the presence of glare and veiling glare from oncoming or
surrounding vehicles. The beam of light coming from the noncompliant
headlamp exceeds the photometric requirement by more than three times,
and may cause glare or be distracting to surrounding vehicles.
Furthermore, certain weather conditions such as snow and fog could
result in light from the noncompliant lamp causing veiling glare to
other motorists driving in the proximity of the vehicle having the
noncompliant lamp.
    NHTSA reviewed GM's other arguments that their products met other
standards (SAE J1383 and UNECE R112) and did not find these arguments
compelling because those standards are not substitutes for the
requirements contained in FMVSS No. 108. Additionally, GM's explanation
that the subject condition has been corrected for service parts and
does not affect current-generation vehicles does not address the
vehicles in the recall population and is

therefore not a basis to not carry out a recall.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that GM has
not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
GM's petition is hereby denied, and GM is consequently obligated to
provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.

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

Anne L. Collins,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2022-04540 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P