[Federal Register: March 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 52)]
[Notices]
[Page 11792-11793]
[DOCID:fr19mr09-122]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59563; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt
FINRA Rule 1122 (Filing of Misleading Information as to Membership or
Registration) in the Consolidated FINRA Rulebook

March 12, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 3, 2009, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') (f/k/a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.
(``NASD'')) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I,
II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD Interpretative Material 1000-1
(``IM-1000-1'') (Filing of Misleading Information as to Membership or
Registration) as a FINRA rule in the consolidated FINRA rulebook with
minor changes. The proposed rule change would renumber NASD IM-1000-1
as FINRA Rule 1122 in the consolidated FINRA rulebook.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    As part of the process of developing a new consolidated rulebook
(``Consolidated FINRA Rulebook''),\3\ FINRA is proposing to adopt NASD
Interpretative Material 1000-1 (``IM-1000-1'') (Filing of Misleading
Information as to Membership or Registration) as a FINRA rule in the
consolidated FINRA rulebook with minor changes discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The current FINRA rulebook consists of (1) FINRA Rules; (2)
NASD Rules; and (3) rules incorporated from NYSE (``Incorporated
NYSE Rules'') (together, the NASD Rules and Incorporated NYSE Rules
are referred to as the ``Transitional Rulebook''). While the NASD
Rules generally apply to all FINRA members, the Incorporated NYSE
Rules apply only to those members of FINRA that are also members of
the NYSE (``Dual Members''). The FINRA Rules apply to all FINRA
members, unless such rules have a more limited application by their
terms. For more information about the rulebook consolidation
process, see FINRA Information Notice, March 12, 2008 (Rulebook
Consolidation Process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASD IM-1000-1 provides that the filing of membership or
registration information as a Registered Representative with FINRA
which is incomplete or inaccurate so as to be misleading, or which
could in any way tend to mislead, or the failure to correct such filing
after notice thereof, may be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and
equitable principles of trade and may be subject to disciplinary
action.
    FINRA proposes to adopt NASD IM-1000-1 as FINRA Rule 1122 as it
believes that this rule continues to be an important tool in ensuring
that members and persons associated with members provide complete and
accurate membership and registration information. FINRA proposes to
clarify its applicability to members and persons associated with
members by specifying that ``no member or person associated with a
member'' shall file incomplete or misleading membership or registration
information. FINRA also proposes to eliminate the reference to the
filing of registration information ``as a Registered Representative''
to clarify that the rule applies to the filing of registration
information regarding any category of registration. In addition, FINRA
proposes to delete the reference that the prohibited conduct may be
deemed inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade and
subject to disciplinary action as unnecessary and to better reflect the
proposed adoption of the NASD IM as a stand-alone FINRA rule.
    FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than 90 days
following Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\4\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change helps to
ensure the accuracy and completeness of membership and registration
information filed with FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or

    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2009-009 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2009-009. 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, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. 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-FINRA-2009-009 and should be
submitted on or before April 9, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-5929 Filed 3-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Injuries and Amputations Resulting from Work with Mechanical Power Presses   March 1987 DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 87-107 Current Intelligence Bulletin 49 Foreword Current Intelligence Bulletins (CIB's) are issued by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, to disseminate new scientific information about occupational hazards. A CIB may draw attention to a hazard previously unrecognized or may report new data suggesting that a known hazard is either more or less dangerous than was previously thought. CIB's are prepared by the staff of the Division of Standards Development and Technology Transfer, NIOSH (Robert A. Taft Laboratories, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati , Ohio 45226). They are distributed to representatives of academia, industry, organized labor, public health agencies, and public interest groups as well as to Federal agencies, such as the Department of Labor, that have responsibilities for protecting the health and safety of workers. This CIB was prepared in conjunction with the staff of the Division of Safety Research, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 944 Chestnut Ridge Road, Morgantown, West Virginia 26505. Our intention is for anyone with the need to know to have ready access to the information contained in these documents; we welcome suggestions concerning their content, style, and distribution. Data from the Bureau of Census for 1980 show that there are about 151,000 mechanical press operators in the United States. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicate that about 10% (2,000 per year) of all reported amputations (20,000 per year) occur among power press operators, including those who operate mechanical power presses. There are existing OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1910.217) governing the operation of mechanical power presses. However, data describing injury rates and operator hand speeds indicate that these existing regulations are not effective in providing adequate protection for all power press operators, especially young male operators. It is also important to note that there may be other reasons for these injuries, such as inadequate training of employers and workers. NIOSH recommends that manufacturers of mechanical power presses disseminate the information in this CIB to their customers, and that employers make it available to their workers. NIOSH also recommends that professional and trade associations and unions inform their members of the potential hazards of mechanical power presses, and that appropriate engineering controls and work practices be used to minimize injuries to workers. Readers seeking more detailed information on the studies referenced in this bulletin are urged to consult the original publications. This CIB describes how hand- or foot-activated power presses operate and how injuries occur during their operation. To help reduce the risk of injury among mechanical power press operators, this document also presents recommendations for safe operating practices that supplement those prescribed in the standards promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (29 CFR 1910.217). [signature] Donald Millar, M.D., D.T.P.H. (Lond.) Assistant Surgeon General Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Centers for Disease Control Abstract In 1980, there were an estimated 151,000 operators of mechanical power presses. The existing standard promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for mechanical power presses (29 CFR[*] 1910.217) provides requirements for press construction and operation. However, power press operators continue to be at risk of injury. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) indicate that about 20,000 amputations occur each year. Between 1,600 and 2,000 (10%) of these amputations have occurred among power press operators. In addition, recent statistics compiled by OSHA indicate that approximately 49% of the injuries on mechanical power presses result in an amputation. Furthermore, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) research (based on injury frequency and severity data, operator hand speeds, compensation paid, and extent of worker exposure) indicated that young male operators appear to be at greater risk than other operators and mechanical power presses are the metalworking machines most in need of research to improve safety. NIOSH is therefore publishing this Current Intelligence Bulletin (CIB) with recommendations for the safe use of mechanical power presses, specifically those operated by foot or dual palm-button controls. Adherence to these recommendations should reduce the risk of injury among mechanical power press operators. Background Some amputations involving power presses occur when the operator places a hand into the working zone (or point of operation) of the press after the press operation is initiated. Most prevention activities involve the placement of guards to prevent operators from placing their hands into the working zone of the press. Guarding an industrial machine is an important safety action that should not be neglected. However, because the shape of the part to be stamped may require reaching near the hazard point, or because guarding alone is not always adequate, employers and manufacturers of presses should also examine how the press is controlled as a way of preventing amputations. Basic Operating Principles of Mechanical Power Presses There are three types of power presses: mechanical, hydraulic, and pneumatic. Their control systems may be mechanical or electro-mechanical. Though these three major types of power presses share some common features, the mechanical power press is the most commonly used and is the type of press on which the most research has been conducted. Therefore, this CIB is limited to mechanical power presses. The two major components of a mechanical power press are a stationary bed and a moving ram. The press shears, punches, forms, or assembles metal or other material by cutting or shaping, using combination dies attached to the ram and bed. The mechanical power press operates on a reciprocating motion principle. The main components for power transmission are the clutch, flywheel, and crankshaft. A motor powers the rotation of the flywheel . A clutch is used to couple the spinning flywheel to the crankshaft. The crankshaft converts the rotary motion of the flywheel to the downward and upward motions of the press ram. A workpiece is fed into the lower die, either automatically or manually, and the machine cycle is initiated. On the downstroke, the ram (with an upper die) moves toward the work area, or point of operation (see Figure 1). When the upper and lower dies press together on the stock material, a re-formed piece is produced. Once the downstroke is completed, the newly formed workpiece can be removed, a new workpiece fed into the die, and the process repeated.

FIGURE 1. MECHANICAL POWER PRESS Clutches Two different types of clutches are used on mechanical power presses: full-revolution clutches and part-revolution clutches. There are important differences between these two types of clutches with respect to operator safety. On presses with a full-revolution clutch, once the clutch is engaged, it remains engaged until the crankshaft has completed a full cycle. The part-revolution clutch differs in that it can be disengaged at any point in the downward cycle; thus stopping for safety reasons before the crankshaft completes the downstroke is possible. Since the full-revolution clutch makes a complete revolution before it disengages, presses equipped with this type of clutch generally pose a greater hazard after a stroke is initiated than presses equipped with a part-revolution clutch. Foot and Hand Controls Initiation of the power press stroke can be either automatic or manual. On presses that are manually operated, there are two popular modes for initiating machine motion: foot or dual palm-button (two-hand) controls (see Figures 2 and 3). With foot controls, the press is activated by pressing down on a foot switch or pedal, leaving the hands free during the cycling of the press. Foot controls do not intrinsically separate the operator's hands from the machine's point of operation during the operating cycle. Persons operating power presses with foot controls must be protected by safeguarding devices not always directly linked to machine operation. These safeguarding devices (e.g., barriers, gates, pullouts) may have interlocks capable of controlling initiation of the stroke. However, it also may be possible to operate the press with safeguards removed or modified so that they do not function as intended.

FIGURE 2. FOOT CONTROLS With dual palm-button controls, once a workpiece is manually positioned in the press, both hands must be removed from the point of operation to depress the palm buttons. Dual palm buttons require both hands to be away from the point of operation when the press cycle is initiated.

FIGURE 3. DUAL PALM-BUTTON CONTROLS Operator productivity may be greater with foot switch operation than with dual palm-button operation since the hands are free during the entire period of the press cycle. However, this freedom of hand movement also places operators using foot switches at greater potential risk of sustaining a point-of-operation injury. Standards Existing OSHA Standards for Foot-Controlled Power Presses The following is a summary of OSHA standards for mechanical power presses using foot controls (29 CFR 1910.217).  OSHA 1910.217(b)(3)(i)  -  Manually-fed mechanical power presses shall incorporate a single-stroke (or anti-repeat) feature that allows the clutch to engage and the press to cycle only once each time the foot control is depressed.  OSHA 1910.217(b)(4)(i)  -  A guard shall be used to protect the foot pedal against accidental operation from failing or moving objects or from another person accidentally stepping on the control.  OSHA 1910.217(b)(4)(ii)  -  A pad with a nonslip contact area shall be firmly attached to the foot pedal.  OSHA 1910.217(b)(4)(iii)  -  The pedal return spring(s) shall be of the compression type, operating on a rod or guided within a hole or tube, or designed to prevent interleaving of spring coils in the event of breakage. A double compression spring (one spring inside another with each spring wound in the opposite direction) is one way to meet this requirement. Existing OSHA Standards for Dual Palm-Button Controlled Power Presses The following is a summary of OSHA standards for mechanical power presses using dual palm-button controls (29 CFR 1910.217).  OSHA 1910.217(b)(7)(v)(c)  -  Mechanical power presses shall incorporate a single-stroke (or anti-repeat) feature that allows the clutch to engage and the press to cycle only once each time the dual palm buttons are depressed.  OSHA 1910.217(b)(7)(v)(a)  -  Dual palm buttons shall incorporate an anti-tie-down feature. This feature allows the buttons to be wired so that they must both be depressed and released for each cycle of the press. This eliminates the possibility that operators will "tie-down" one of the palm buttons, permitting the use of only one button to cycle the press.  OSHA 1910.217(b)(7)(v)(a)  -  Both palm buttons shall have guards to prevent unintended operation and separation between buttons to prevent "bridging" of the palm buttons by operators - i.e., activating the press without using both hands.  OSHA 1910.217(c)(3)(vii)(c)  -  To reduce the "after-reach" hazard, a minimum safety distance between the point of operation and the dual palm buttons shall be maintained on mechanical power presses based on the following formula:                                     Formula                                     Formula D = 1.6 m/sec X T (sec), or D = 63 in./sec X T (sec) The safety distance, D, is the minimum safe distance between the point of operation and the palm button. The 1.6-m/sec (63-in./sec) value is a hand-speed constant that represents the typical speed at which workers can perform a hand movement toward the point of operation. The hazard time, T, represents the time required to eliminate the point-of-operation hazard on the press. On presses with part-revolution clutches, the hazard time is defined as the stopping time of the press ram. On presses with full-revolution clutches (1910.217(c)(3) (viii)), the hazard time is defined as the maximum possible time required for the ram to complete one downstroke.  OSHA 1910.217(e)(1)(i)  -  The safety distance shall be maintained for each die used on the press; it should be checked periodically and at each new die set-up to ensure that operators are adequately protected. The most accurate method of measuring the hazard time on power presses equipped with part-revolution clutches is through the use of a stop-time meter. This device accurately measures the time that it takes the ram to stop after the palm buttons of a press have been released - i.e., after the stop signal has been initiated.  OSHA 1910-217(e)(1)(ii)  -  On presses with part-revolution clutches, the clutch/brake mechanism shall be checked periodical ly for wear and adjustment. Dangerously worn or maladjusted brakes shall be replaced or repaired before further use of the press. Brake monitors, which are devices that monitor the stopping performance of the brake, shall be installed as required. Hazards of Power Press Operation Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data indicate that of approximately 20,000 annual occupational amputations, between 1,600 and 2,000 (10%) occur among power press operators (McCaffrey 1981; BLS 1982). Injury statistics compiled by OSHA for the years 1975 through 1983 indicate that 49% of the injuries from mechanical power presses resulted in an amputation (OSHA 1975-1983). Of the 2,908 mechanical power press injuries reported to OSHA (OSHA 1975-1983), foot-controlled power presses were used in approximately 62% or 1,801 of the injuries, and hand-activated presses were used in approximately 30% or 876 of the injuries. On poorly safeguarded presses, foot switches can be inadvertently activated while the workers' hands are at the point of operation, resulting in an injury. A study conducted by NIOSH researchers (Trump and Etherton 1986) indicated that there is a critical cycling rate above which the frequency of inadvertent actuation errors increases dramatically as the cycling rate increases. For the simulated tasks in this study, this critical cycling rate was 17.5 strokes/min. These results indicated that jobs on foot-activated presses should be evaluated to identify their critical cycling rate, and steps should be taken to reduce the hazard of inadvertent actuation due to exceeding that critical cycling rate. Trump and Etherton concluded that at operational speeds in excess of a critical cycling rate ". . . operators performing repetitive tasks begin gradually to lose effective control over their foot movements." Trump and Etherton (1985) also concluded that two factors interact to cause inadvertent machine activation. First, "unmediated hand movements" are made in response to workpiece and machine problems. In other words, the operator may attempt to correct the placement of a workpiece after the downstroke of the press has been initiated. Second, out-of-sequence foot movements may be caused by loss of operator balance or by a breaking of the normal task rhythm. Safeguards used on foot-controlled mechanical power presses include pullout and restraint devices. These consist of attachments to the wrists that pull the hands away from or hold them outside the danger point. Barrier guards or gates that prevent entry into the working zone of the press during the downstroke are also used. On presses equipped with part-revolution clutches, another safeguard used is the presence-sensing device. These devices initiate a stop signal if the effective sensing field is penetrated. The two most common types of presence-sensing devices are photoelectric and radiofrequency (capacitance). The safety theory supporting the use of dual palm buttons can be defeated if operators are able to place their hands into the point of operation after the press cycle has been initiated - i.e., reach between the dies while they are closing. One way this may occur is when dual palm buttons are located so close to the machine dies that workers can place their hands into the working zone of the press before the ram has completed the downstroke. This type of movement is commonly called the after-reach hazard. NIOSH researchers have demonstrated that the physical location and orientation of dual palm buttons in relation to the point of operation as well as the operator's hand speed have a significant effect on an operator's ability to "after-reach" (Pizatella and Moll 1987; Horton et al. 1986). Present OSHA standards do not account for differences in hand speed as a result of palm-button location and orientation, and some press operators may be capable of attaining hand speeds in excess of the current OSHA hand-speed constant of 1.6 m/sec (63 in./sec) (Pizatella and Moll 1987). Table 1 lists the mean, standard deviations, and ranges of hand speeds of a sample of power press operators working on a press simulator controlled by dual palm buttons. The data in Table 1 were obtained at two palm-button locations: waist level and shoulder level, both with vertical orientation. Several significant points are demonstrated by the data in Table 1 . The results of this study (analyzed by an analysis of variance procedure) generally indicate that as a group, male workers have faster hand speed than female workers (P<0.01). Also, based on Duncan's Multiple Range Test, younger workers (under age 31) have faster hand speed than older workers (P<0.01). Further, 28% of all subjects, 40% of males and 12% of females, exceeded the OSHA standard of 1.6 m/sec (63 in./sec). Of males under 31, 79% exceeded the OSHA standard. The fastest hand speed measured was 3.6 m/sec (142 in./sec) - more than twice the hand speed specified in the OSHA standard. Finally, locating the palm buttons at shoulder level did not significantly alter the operator's ability to exceed the 1.6-m/sec (63-in./sec) standard. Thus, based on these data, compliance with the current OSHA hand-speed standard may not be providing adequate protection for all power press operators. Since this study identified young male press operators as having hand speeds faster than other press operators, an analysis of epidemiologic data should indicate that young male press operators have a larger amputation rate. To examine this possibility, NIOSH investigators undertook an analysis of injury data from State workers' compensation agencies (Jensen and Sinkule, in press). Injury data from 29 states were used to compare amputation injury incidence rates (IR) for power press operators to identify any differences due to gender and age. While this analysis indicated that gender did not significantly affect the IR, there were differences in the IR based on age. The IR for young male press operators was compared to the IR of all other press operators. The IR for young male press operators was 1.91 cases/1,000 press operators while the IR for all other press operators was 1.58. Data from the state of Ohio were analyzed separately because of some recordkeeping differences. The Ohio data demonstrated a more dramatic difference in the IR among press operators. The IR for young male press operators in Ohio was 4.09 cases/1,000 press operators as compared to an IR of 1.41 for all other press operators. Although data analysis is not definitive in establishing that young male press operators are at a greater risk of injury, the differences in IR are in a direction consistent with the premise that young male press operators are not being adequately protected with present safeguarding mechanisms. Table l. Mean after-reach hand speed (m/s)[*] by palm-button location, gender, and age[†]   Mean after-reach hand speed (m/s) by palm-button location, gender, and age                                 Gender and age                              Waist-level location                             Shoulder-level location                                    Combined                                      Range

                                     Mean                                     SD[§]                                      N[**]                                      Mean                                       SD                                        N                                      Mean                                       SD                                        N                                      Min.                                      Max. Male: 20-30 2.09 0.70 12 2.18 0.68 12 2.13 0.68 24 1.01 3.63 31-40 1.01 0.44 09 1.26 0.47 09 1.13 0.46 18 0.53 2.21 41-50 1.18 0.48 04 1.38 0.41 04 1.25 0.43 08 0.72 1.86 51-60 1.11 0.38 06 1.70 0.71 06 1.41 0.62 12 0.56 2.97                                      Total 1.46 0.73 31 1.71 0.70 31 1.58 0.72 62 0.53 3.63 Female: 20-30 1.13 0.63 07 1.07 0.27 07 1.10 0.46 14 0.38 2.15 31-40 1.23 0.35 04 1.48 0.37 04 1.36 0.36 08 0.81 1.86 41-50 1.07 0.74 10 1.23 0.62 10 1.15 0.67 20 0.49 3.06 51-60 0.66 0.20 08 0.97 0.30 08 0.81 0.30 16 0.48 1.41                                      Total 0.99 0.57 29 1.16 0.45 29 1.07 0.52 58 0.48 3.06 Combined: 20-30 1.73 0.81 19 1.77 0.78 19 1.75 0.78 38 0.38 3.63 31-4 1.08 0.41 13 1.32 0.44 13 1.20 0.44 26 0.53 2.21 41-5 1.08 0.66 14 1.27 0.56 14 1.18 0.60 28 0.49 3.06 51-6 0.85 0.36 14 1.28 0.62 14 1.07 0.54 28 0.48 2.97                                    Aggregate 1.23 0.70 60 1.45 0.65 60 1.34 0.68 120 0.38 3.63 * To convert to in./sec, multiply meters by 39.37. [return to table] † Adapted from Pizatella and Moll (1987). [return to table] § Standard deviation. [return to table] ** Number. [return to table] Thus, to enhance the protection provided to all press operators, emphasis should be placed on ensuring the proper use of existing point-of-operation safeguards and the development of improved safeguards. Based on these findings, NIOSH concludes that even though there are existing OSHA standards, a significant risk of injury to power press operators remains. Operators are not always protected by the safeguarding provided because there are wide variations in hand speed among males, females, younger workers, and older workers. In addition to variations in hand speed there are several reasons why existing safeguarding may not provide the desired protection, such as:  On machines that stamp differently shaped parts, each of which needs a different guard, it may take more time to install the proper safeguarding than it takes to run the job.  Operators sometimes defeat the purpose of safeguards by removing or overriding them for convenience or increased productivity.  Safeguarding is not always adjusted properly. This may be a problem with pullout and restraint devices if workers with different hand sizes and arm lengths work on consecutive shifts at the same machine. In some cases, dual palm buttons may be located too close to the point of operation because use of the existing hand-speed constant leads to erroneous placement of the palm buttons. Also, two-hand controls or presence-sensing devices may be improperly located after dies are changed. Conclusions Even though there is an existing OSHA standard that addresses construction and operation of mechanical power presses, injuries and amputations among press operators are still occurring with alarming frequency. In many cases, these injuries occur when the press is inadvertently activated while the operator's hands are in the operating zone of the press. The results of a recent experiment conducted by NIOSH researchers indicate that the chance for inadvertent press activation (possibly involving injury) may increase as the cycling rate increases (Trump and Etherton 1986). Injuries occur as a result of "after-reach" among operators who initiate power presses using dual palm buttons. Therefore, attention should be given to the individual operator's hand speed, keeping in mind that, in general hand speed may be a function of age and gender. Injuries may also occur as a result of deactivating or overriding safeguards. Under no circumstances should safeguards be deactivated or overridden. The recommendations contained in this CIB are intended to address these problems and thereby reduce injuries among mechanical power press operators. Recommendations The recommendations presented below were compiled from generally accepted safety practices and research; they are intended to supplement existing OSHA standards. Implementation of these recommendations should be considered in any comprehensive safety program for the prevention of injuries among mechanical power press operators. We wish to emphasize that these data from NIOSH studies demonstrate that hand speed may be an inappropriate measure on which to base a safety distance standard for operation of mechanical power presses. It may be impractical to implement a single hand-speed constant which would protect all workers under all power press set-ups. Implementation of such a hand-speed standard would render dual palm buttons practically useless as a safeguarding device due to the long safety distances which would result. Additional information pertaining to the design of safeguards for mechanical power press safety can be found in OSHA 1980, ANSI 1982, and Wilco Inc. 1976 and 1976a. Foot-Controlled Power Presses  Foot controls should be used with point-of-operation safeguards that cannot be easily bypassed or misadjusted.  Interlocking safeguards should be considered so that the foot control is inoperable when the safeguards are not functioning.  An ergonomically correct, sitting work position, if possible, is preferred over a standing position if a foot control is used.  To reduce strain on the foot, a foot-rest should be provided near the pedal.  Riding the pedal (keeping the foot on the pedal without actually depressing it) is hazardous, and standard operating procedures should note this unacceptable work practice.  The rate at which presses are being cycled should be monitored periodically to ensure that operators are not working at a pace that leads to inadvertent pressing of the foot pedal. Power Presses Controlled with Dual Palm Buttons  Because full-revolution clutches cannot be stopped once they are activated, they should only be used on presses with short downstrokes or fast cycling rates.  To reduce musculoskeletal stress to the wrists, arms, and shoulders of press operators, ergonomic job design principles should be considered when locating and/or orienting dual palm buttons in relation to the point of operation.  Caution must be exercised in evaluating each power press set-up and operation to ensure that an adequate safety distance is maintained at all times. Employers should consider evaluating individual press operators to determine if they are exceeding the current OSHA hand-speed constant. If a worker is identified as being capable of exceeding the hand-speed constant, more positive means of point-of-operation safeguarding should be considered, such as fixed barrier guards. Recommended Checklists for Safe Operation of Mechanical Power Presses The checklists presented below are provided as an adjunct to the above recommendations to aid in maintaining safe use of foot and dual palm-button controls for mechanical power presses. Checklist to be used when foot controls are used:  Safeguards are in place which will prevent injury if the foot control is inadvertently depressed.  A guard or cover is over the foot switch to prevent activation by fallen objects.  The working posture is as nonfatiguing as possible. Seating is provided where possible.  Presence-sensing devices, if used, are properly maintained and aligned to ensure that the sensing field is effectively safeguarding the point of operation.  Work rules have been established against riding the foot pedal.  A check has been made to see if operators inadvertently push the foot switch because they are working at a high cycling rate with the foot control.  The brake monitor, if required, is operative.  The foot control must be depressed and released once before the press can be cycled again.  Safeguarding devices and procedures are available for die set-up and maintenance to prevent or arrest an inadvertent downstroke of the ram.  The press is routinely and frequently inspected and properly maintained. Checklist to be used when dual palm buttons are used:  The palm buttons are installed to meet at least the OSHA minimum safety distance requirements. Greater distances are recommended based on the operator's true hand speed.  The palm buttons are installed to reduce undue operator fatigue.  The palm buttons are protected against unintended operation and are arranged so that the only probable means of operation is by both hands of a single worker, or by both hands of each operator where more than one operator is being protected by dual palm buttons.  On presses with part-revolution clutches, the removal of a worker's hand from any palm button during the downstroke of the ram quickly deactivates the clutch and applies the brake to stop ram motion.  The brake monitor, if required, is operative.  All palm buttons must be released before an interrupted stroke can be resumed or the press can be cycled again.  The palm but tons are fixed in a position so that only a set-up person, supervisor, or safety engineer can move them.  The position of the palm buttons is arranged to prevent any part of the body from entering the working zone of the press during the downstroke.  The operation of the press is monitored frequently to ensure that operators are not bypassing or defeating the safety features of the dual palm buttons.  Safeguarding devices and procedures are available for die set-up and maintenance to prevent or arrest an inadvertent downstroke of the ram.  Presence-sensing devices, if used, are properly maintained and aligned to ensure that the sensing field is effectively safeguarding the point of operation.  The press is routinely and frequently inspected and properly maintained. Note *Code of Federal Regulations. See CFR in references. [return to text] References  ANSI (1982). American national standard for machine tools - mechanical power presses - safety requirements for construction, care, and use. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute, Inc., ANSI B11.1.  BLS (1982). Work-related hand injuries and upper extremity amputations. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2160.  Bureau of the Census (1984). 1980 census of the population: detailed population characteristics, Part 51, Table 217. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.  CFR (1986). Code of Federal regulations. Washington, DC.: U.S. Government Printing Office, Office of the Federal Register.  DHEW (1975). Machine guarding  -  assessment of need. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHEW (NIOSH) Publication No. 75-173.  Horton JT, Pizatelia TJ, Plummer RW (1986). The effect of palm button location on hand speed for power press operations. In: W. Karwowski, ed. Trends in ergonomics/human factors III. North Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier Sci Pub B.V. Co., pp. 963-969.  Jensen R, Sinkule E (in press). Press operator amputations: age and gender as risk factors. Journal of Safety Research.  McCaffrey DP (1981). Work-related amputations by type and prevalence. Monthly Labor Review 3:35-41.  OSHA (1975-1983). Unpublished report of injuries to mechanical power press operators. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Mechanical Engineering Safety Standards.  OSHA (1980). Concepts and techniques of machine safeguarding. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Office of Training and Education, Publication No. 3067.  Pizatella TJ, Moll MB (1987). Simulation of the after-reach hazard on power presses using dual palm button actuation. Human Factors 29(l):13-22.  Trump TR, Etherton JR (1985). Foreseeable errors in the use of foot controls on industrial machines. Applied Ergonomics 16(2):103-111.  Trump TR, Etherton JR (1986). Machine-cycling errors with foot switches in repetitive tasks: a work station design simulation experiment. Applied Ergonomics 17(3):199-208.  Wilco, Inc. (1976). Mechanical power press safety engineering guide. Springfield, VA: NIOSH contract report no. 210-75-0042, September 1976, National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB 80195340.  Wilco, Inc. (1976a). Analysis of and design requirements for mechanical power press safeguarding systems. Springfield, VA: NIOSH contract report no. 210-75-0042, September 1976, National Technical Information Service, NTIS PB 86120557. Page last reviewed: June 6, 2014  Content source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 96 (Friday, May 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23046-23047]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10169]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2017-0002]

Final Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final notice.

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

SUMMARY: Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or
modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have
been made final for the communities listed in the table below.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that a 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 Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's)
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those
buildings.

DATES: The effective date of August 15, 2017 which has been established
for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing
the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.

ADDRESSES: The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the
final flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov by the effective date indicated
above.

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 Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or
modified flood hazard information for each community listed.
Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local
circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy
Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any
appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address
cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at www.msc.fema.gov.
    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds
and/or communities listed in the table below.

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

    Dated: May 2, 2017.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Washington County, Maryland and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1523
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Hagerstown.....................  City Hall, 1 East Franklin
                                          Street, Hagerstown, MD 21740.
Town of Boonsboro......................  Town Hall, 21 North Main
                                          Street, Boonsboro, MD 21713.
Town of Clear Spring...................  Town Hall, 146 Cumberland
                                          Street, Clear Spring, MD
                                          21722.
Town of Funkstown......................  Town Hall, 30 East Baltimore
                                          Street, Funkstown, MD 21734.
Town of Hancock........................  Town Hall, 126 West High
                                          Street, Hancock, MD 21750.
Town of Keedysville....................  Town Hall, 19 South Main
                                          Street, Keedysville, MD 21756.
Town of Sharpsburg.....................  Town Hall, 106 East Main
                                          Street, Sharpsburg, MD 21782.
Town of Smithsburg.....................  Town Hall, 21 West Water
                                          Street, Smithsburg, MD 21783.

Town of Williamsport...................  Town Hall, 2 North
                                          Conococheague Street,
                                          Williamsport, MD 21795.
Unincorporated Areas of Washington       Washington County
 County.                                  Administrative Annex, 80 West
                                          Baltimore Street, Hagerstown,
                                          MD 21740.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Jim Wells County, Texas and Incorporated Areas
                         Docket No.: FEMA-B-1603
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Alice..........................  City Hall, 500 East Main
                                          Street, Alice, TX 78332.
City of Premont........................  City Hall, 200 Southwest 1st
                                          Street, Premont, TX 78375.
City of San Diego......................  City Hall, 404 South Mier
                                          Street, San Diego, TX 78384.
Unincorporated Areas of Jim Wells        Jim Wells County Courthouse,
 County.                                  200 North Almond Street,
                                          Alice, TX 78332.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-10169 Filed 5-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56956-56958]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22994]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 240

[Release No. 34-87327; File No. S7-18-19]

Commission Statement on Market Structure Innovation for Thinly
Traded Securities

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Commission statement.

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

SUMMARY: This Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
statement (``Statement'') is intended to facilitate the development of
proposals that will improve secondary market trading for equity
securities that trade in lower volume (``thinly traded securities'').
The Commission's interest in considering proposals for improvement in
this segment of the secondary market extends to proposals that could
include the suspension or termination of unlisted trading privileges
(``UTP'') and/or exemptive relief from Regulation NMS and other rules
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'').

DATES: The Commission's statement was effective October 17, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/policy.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-18-19 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 S7-18-19. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us
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/policy.shtml). Comments are
also available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's
Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090 on
official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
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. Studies,
memoranda, or other substantive items may be added by the Commission or
staff to the comment file. A notification of the inclusion in the
comment file of any materials will be made available on the
Commission's website. To ensure direct electronic receipt of such
notifications, sign up through the ``Stay Connected'' option at
www.sec.gov to receive notifications by email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cristie March, Senior Special Counsel;
Deborah Flynn, Special Counsel; Christopher Chow, Special Counsel; or
Liliana Burnett, Attorney-Adviser, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, in the Division of
Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE, Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The Commission is issuing this Statement to facilitate the ability
of market participants to develop innovative proposals for changes in
equity market structure that are designed to improve trading in thinly
traded securities. Although the Commission believes that the current
equity market structure generally works well for securities that trade
in higher volume, the Commission has concerns that the current ``one-
size-fits-all'' equity market structure, as largely governed under
Regulation NMS,\1\ may not be optimal for thinly traded securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (adopting 17 CFR 242.600 through
242.613 (Regulation NMS)) (``NMS Release''). ``NMS'' stands for the
National Market System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The secondary market for thinly traded securities faces liquidity
challenges that can have a negative effect on both investors and
issuers. In particular, thinly traded securities, which are often also
smaller-capitalization securities, tend to have wider spreads and less
displayed size relative to securities that trade in greater volume,
often resulting in higher transaction costs for investors.\2\ Potential
investors in such securities also may be concerned that they could
encounter difficulties finding the necessary liquidity to establish or
unwind positions in the stocks.\3\ A lack of readily available
liquidity also may discourage potential market makers from electing to
make markets in those

securities.\4\ For these reasons, a thinly traded security could affect
a potential investor's willingness to invest in that issuer's
securities, possibly resulting in even fewer trades.\5\ Having a less
liquid security also could negatively affect an issuer's financing
(e.g., the cost of capital).\6\ Staff in the Division of Trading and
Markets has issued a paper providing additional background on the
unique trading challenges and characteristics related to thinly traded
securities.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Division of Trading and Markets Data Paper: Empirical
Analysis of Liquidity Demographics and Market Quality, April 10,
2018, available at https://www.sec.gov/files/thinly_traded_eqs_data_summary.pdf, at 1 (summarizing the quoting
and trading characteristics of NMS stocks on the lower end of the
liquidity spectrum).
    \3\ See, e.g., Transcript for Roundtable on Market Structure for
Thinly-Traded Securities, April 23, 2018, available at https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/equity-market-structure-roundtables/thinly-traded-securities-rountable-042318-transcript.txt (``Transcript''),
at 35; see also Thierry Foucault, Ohad Kadan & Eugene Kandel,
Liquidity Cycles and Make/Take Fees in Electronic Markets, 68 J.
Fin. 299 (2013) (discussing the externality of liquidity demand
increases resulting in the increasing supply of liquidity, and an
exogenous increase in the supply of liquidity resulting in an
increase in the demand for liquidity).
    \4\ See, e.g., Transcript, supra note 3, at 24.
    \5\ In addition, one Roundtable participant suggested that it
also could affect a company's attractiveness to current and
prospective employees. See id. at 21, 85-86.
    \6\ See, e.g., Alexander W. Butler, Gustavo Grullon & James P.
Weston, Stock Market Liquidity and the Cost of Issuing Equity, 40(2)
J. Fin. & Quant. Anal. 331 (2005) (finding that stock liquidity is
an important determinant of the cost of raising external capital and
that investment bank fees are significantly lower for firms with
more liquid stock); Jonathan Brogaard, Dan Li & Ying Xia, Stock
Liquidity and Default Risk, 124(3) J. Fin. Econ. 486 (2007) (finding
that stock liquidity reduces firm default risk by improving stock
price informational efficiency and facilitating corporate governance
by blockholders).
    \7\ See Securities and Exchange Commission, Division of Trading
and Markets, Staff Background Paper on the Market Structure for
Thinly Traded Securities (October 17, 2019), available at https://www.sec.gov/rules/policy/2019/thinly-traded-securities-tm-background-paper.pdf (``Staff Background Paper'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission recognizes there are various factors that affect the
liquidity of a security and that market structure changes can address
only part of the overall listing and trading environment for thinly
traded securities. However, the Commission believes that there are a
number of market structure changes \8\ that could improve secondary
market trading for thinly traded securities and is therefore issuing
this Statement to encourage innovative approaches in this regard.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As discussed further below, market participants have
suggested, for example, heightened market making obligations and
market making incentives, periodic intraday auctions, non-automated
auctions, and indicative quoting.
    \9\ Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this policy
statement as not a ``major rule,'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
See 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Commission Position

A. Potential Market Structure Innovations for Thinly Traded Securities

    The Commission believes that certain market structure innovations
that may provide benefits to thinly traded securities, when applied on
one given exchange, may be less likely to succeed if the securities are
subject to concurrent trading on multiple exchanges with different
trading models. Accordingly, to be effective, these innovations may
require the suspension or termination of UTP.\10\ UTP permits
securities listed on any national securities exchange to be traded by
other such exchanges.\11\ Currently, UTP is automatically extended to a
security once it begins trading on the listing exchange.\12\ Similarly,
some market structure innovations related to improving markets for
thinly traded securities may require relief from certain Regulation NMS
or other Exchange Act rules to be effective. Therefore, for thinly
traded securities, the Commission is interested in considering
proposals for market structure innovations in conjunction with the
potential suspension or termination of UTP and/or the possibility of
exemptive relief from Regulation NMS and other rules under the Exchange
Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Commission understands that the suspension or
termination of UTP may have effects on intermarket competition and,
as noted below, welcomes comment on this matter and other matters
raised in this Statement.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(f).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 43217, 65 FR 53560
(September 5, 2000) (eliminating the one-day waiting period for
exchanges to extend UTP to listed IPOs).
    \13\ Exchanges may submit market structure innovation proposals
as rule filings in accordance with Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act
and the rules thereunder. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b). An application to
suspend or terminate UTP for thinly traded securities under Section
12(f) of the Exchange Act and the rules thereunder may be submitted
to the Commission. See 15 U.S.C. 78l(f). Requests for exemptive
relief from Regulation NMS or other rules under the Exchange Act for
thinly traded securities may also be submitted to the Commission.
See 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a). To the extent non-exchanges would like to
recommend market structure innovations, those recommendations may be
submitted to File Number S7-18-19 for this Statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of suggested market structure approaches to improve
liquidity for thinly traded securities were raised at the Roundtable
and elsewhere. One approach that has been suggested is that an exchange
could provide market makers with incentives to assume heightened market
making obligations for thinly traded securities.\14\ The concern
expressed is that market makers may lack adequate incentives to quote,
especially with significant order interest, at or inside the displayed
best bid or offer in thinly traded securities, particularly during
periods of increased volatility. Increased incentives to be in--and
stay in--the markets for these securities could encourage market makers
to quote more frequently and in greater size, which in turn could lead
to narrower spreads and increased displayed order interest. An exchange
might also explore ways to incentivize market makers to provide
additional liquidity not only during normal market conditions, but also
during times of market stress when liquidity in these securities can
become even scarcer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Transcript, supra note 3, at 49, 150-52, 192-93.
For example, in the past, human market makers such as New York Stock
Exchange specialists were the exclusive market makers in a range of
allocated securities (including those that were thinly traded and
actively traded) and, as a result, had more comprehensive
information about the trading interest in those securities that
facilitated their ability to meet heightened affirmative and
negative obligations and incentivized their quoting activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Others have suggested that an exchange could implement periodic
intraday auctions as a means of concentrating liquidity in thinly
traded securities at times other than solely at the market open and
market close.\15\ To the extent that liquidity in these securities does
not efficiently coalesce when traded across multiple equity exchanges
in intervals of microseconds, such an approach might facilitate more
efficient order interaction and price formation by concentrating
liquidity at one exchange and at distinct time intervals during the
trading day.\16\ Doing so may help to resolve difficulties that market
participants currently have in finding contra-side liquidity,
particularly for larger-size orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., Yakov Amihud, Haim Mendelson & Beni Lauterbach,
Market Microstructure and Securities Values: Evidence from the Tel
Aviv Stock Exchange, 45 J. Fin. Econ. 365 (1997) (noting that adding
additional auctions to the trading day on the Tel Aviv stock
exchange was associated with an increase in liquidity and that some
European stock exchanges already include an intra-day call auction
where continuous trading is paused for a period while a call auction
is performed). See also Transcript, supra note 3, at 137; Nasdaq
Application to Permit Issuer Choice to Consolidate Liquidity by
Suspending Unlisted Trading Privileges (April 25, 2018), available
at https://www.sec.gov/comments/265-31/26531-3515735-162293.pdf, at
5.
    \16\ See, e.g., Robert Schwartz & Reto Francioni, Call Auction
Trading, Encyclopedia of Finance 477 (2013) (stating that ``[t]he
electronic call auction is appealing for small and mid-cap stocks
because order batching augments the efficiency of liquidity
provision by focusing liquidity at specific points in time'' and
that ``[f]or securities with little liquidity and less frequent
trading, one or two calls per day may suffice.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Another market structure change that has been suggested to help
improve liquidity is the introduction of non-automated markets for
thinly traded securities.\17\ Such an approach could enable an exchange
to offer a negotiated market (i.e., a market that would permit buyers
and sellers to communicate directly to determine an agreed upon price),
whether for thinly traded securities orders generally, or for larger-
size orders more specifically. Such a negotiated market might address
certain

liquidity challenges that fully continuous markets pose to thinly
traded securities (e.g., the increased risk of ``missing the market''
when displaying an order).\18\ A related approach might be for an
exchange to allow more informative indicative quoting \19\ in thinly
traded securities as opposed to requiring firm quoting (again, whether
as a general matter or for larger-size orders), to facilitate trade
negotiation and incentivize market maker participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, e.g., Transcript, supra note 3, at 79, 124, 149-52.
See also id. at 26 (discussing the lack of negotiated trading on
exchanges).
    \18\ This situation arises, for instance, when a displayed order
is posted to a continuous market. The displayed order signals a buy
or sell intention to the market, but instead of the displayed order
being filled, a separate trade occurs either at or slightly better
than the initially displayed price. Because the market consequently
moves away from the initially displayed price, the initial posted
order goes unexecuted. See also Staff Background Paper, supra note
7, at 12 (describing the Roundtable discussions of the difficulties
in filling orders).
    \19\ See, e.g., Transcript, supra note 3, at 80-81 (stating that
indications of interest currently often are static or stale). An
indicative quote is an expression of interest to transact designed
to attract the contra side of the trade but that is not a firm
quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that these potential market structure changes
are merely a few examples of the types of innovations that exchanges
and other market participants could consider developing that might
facilitate improved trading in thinly traded securities. This list is
not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the possibilities market
participants could consider. The Commission encourages exchanges and
other market participants, including issuers, to explore various types
of market structure innovations to address the liquidity challenges in
trading these securities.

B. Invitation for Proposals To Address the Market for Thinly Traded
Securities

    To better facilitate secondary market trading in thinly traded
securities, one possible approach is for a national securities exchange
that lists thinly traded securities to consider submitting a proposal
focused on enhancing the market structure for these securities. To the
extent a listing exchange would like to submit a proposal for an
innovation that incorporates or depends on the suspension or
termination of UTP, such an exchange could apply for the suspension or
termination of UTP pursuant to Section 12(f) of the Exchange Act so
that these securities that an exchange lists would no longer trade on
other national securities exchanges.\20\ As necessary to implement its
proposed innovations, an exchange could submit requests for exemptive
relief from Regulation NMS or other Exchange Act rules.\21\ The
Commission recognizes that market structure changes may not address all
of the challenges faced by issuers whose securities are thinly traded.
But to the extent that the current secondary market requirements could
be tailored to better serve thinly traded securities without negatively
affecting trading as a whole, the Commission is interested in
evaluating proposals that listing exchanges may submit. The Commission
notes that market structure changes to improve trading in thinly traded
securities could have implications for the broader market structure.
The Commission encourages any proposal to address these potential
broader market structure effects. In addition, the Commission expects
any proposal to demonstrate how it would satisfy any relevant statutory
requirements including, for example, Section 6, Section 11A, and
Section 12 of the Exchange Act.\22\ The Commission would evaluate any
proposals pursuant to such relevant statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See 15 U.S.C. 78l(f).
    \21\ At this time, the Commission's initiative is focused on
encouraging on-exchange innovation for thinly traded securities and
is not intended to address OTC trading of these securities.
    \22\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f, 15 U.S.C. 78k-1, and 15 U.S.C. 78l,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To facilitate the Commission's evaluation, it would be helpful for
a proposal to address certain considerations. For example, a proposal
should define what ``thinly traded security'' means, whether based on
average daily trading volume, number of trades, share volume, or dollar
volume, potentially combined with additional factors such as market
capitalization, number of shareholders, or public float. Such proposals
should also include an explanation of how the thresholds were set,
including any relevant data and analysis.
    The proposal should address whether all securities that meet a
chosen threshold test are included in the tier, or whether listed
companies may opt in or out. If listed companies may opt in or out, the
proposal should also address how the benefit of this mechanism
justifies the potential additional operational complexity this may
impose on NMS market participants.
    To the extent relevant, the Commission encourages exchange
proposals that involve the suspension or termination of UTP to address:
(1) Steps that might be taken to enhance the technological resilience
of its new trading tier in light of the greater dependence of market
participants on a single exchange; and (2) business continuity plan(s)
in the event of the failure of an exchange's systems that would affect
trading in, and required quote and trade information dissemination
regarding, the thinly traded securities.
    The Commission encourages all proposals to address: (1) How and
when a security would begin trading in the thinly traded security tier,
and how it would transition out of the tier if that security no longer
qualifies for trading in the tier; (2) how the exchange would address
NMS Plan market data revenue allocation for any thinly traded
securities not subject to UTP; and (3) the data the exchange would
collect and make available and the data analysis it would conduct to
enable an assessment of the success of the proposal.\23\ A proposal
also could consider the collection and sharing of data to measure the
market-wide effects of: (i) Limiting trading of the affected securities
to a single exchange, including any market quality benefits or costs
that may result from consolidating the liquidity pool; (ii) relief from
Exchange Act rules that restrict the ability of exchanges to innovate
beyond the fully continuous market models that exist today; and (iii)
any other innovative market structure modifications. The Commission
welcomes comments on matters addressed in this Statement, including any
potential effects on intermarket competition for listing and trading
thinly traded securities, as well as related potential effects on
market transparency and the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In so doing, an exchange could consider describing how it
could evaluate the success of a proposal, including: (i) The data
that could be collected; (ii) the testing and comparative analysis
based on specified metrics that could be conducted to determine the
effectiveness of the program; (iii) an explanation of the
statistical approach it could employ in its testing and comparisons;
and (iv) the empirical analysis it could perform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission looks forward to engaging with exchanges that list
and trade thinly traded securities, market participants involved in
this segment of the equities market, including issuers, investors, and
others to facilitate market structure innovations that can meaningfully
improve secondary market trading for these securities.

    By the Commission.

    Dated: October 17, 2019.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22994 Filed 10-23-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: April 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 83)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22693]
[DOCID:fr30ap10-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0328; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-44-AD;
Amendment 39-16161; AD 2010-01-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company (GE) CF34-1A,
CF34-3A, and CF34-3B Series Turbofan Engines; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting airworthiness directive (AD) 2010-01-04,
which published in the Federal Register. That AD applies to GE CF34-1A,
CF34-3A, and CF34-3B series turbofan engines. The docket number is
incorrect in all three of its locations. This document corrects those
references. In all other respects, the original document remains the
same.

DATES: Effective April 30, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Frost, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 8, 2010 (75 FR 1017), we
published a final rule AD, FR Doc. E9-31274, in the Federal Register.
That AD applies to GE CF34-1A, CF34-3A, and CF34-3B series turbofan
engines. We need to make the following correction:

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

    On page 1017, in the first column, under 14 CFR Part 39, ``Docket
No. FAA-2008-0328'' is corrected to read ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0328''.
    On page 1018, in the first column, under Comments Invited, starting
in the ninth line, ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0328'' is corrected to read
``Docket No. FAA-2009-0328''.
    On page 1018, in the third column, under Sec.  39.13 [Amended],
starting in the eighth line, ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0328'' is corrected
to read ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0328''.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 23, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-9962 Filed 4-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 226 (Friday, November 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72499-72500]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25765]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4675-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Seminole Tribe of Florida; Major Disaster and Related
Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Seminole Tribe of Florida (FEMA-4675-DR), dated
September 30, 2022, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued September 30, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 30, 2022, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage to the lands associated with
the Seminole Tribe of Florida resulting from Hurricane Ian beginning
on September 23, 2022, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists for the Seminole Tribe of Florida.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and
assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures
(Categories A and B), including direct Federal assistance, under the
Public Assistance program, Hazard Mitigation for the Tribe, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments
(PDAs).
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
under section 408 will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. For a period of 30 days from the start of the
incident period, you are authorized to fund assistance for debris
removal and emergency protective measures, including direct Federal
assistance, at 100 percent of the total eligible costs.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas J. McCool, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the Seminole Tribe of Florida have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Individual Assistance for the Seminole Tribe of Florida and
associated lands.
    Debris removal and emergency protective measures (Categories A
and B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program for the Seminole Tribe of Florida and associated
lands.
    All areas within the Seminole Tribe of Florida are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially

Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-25765 Filed 11-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: March 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 11365]
[DOCID:fr17mr09-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP04-48-002]

Chandeleur Pipe Line Company; Notice of Application for Amendment

March 10, 2009.
    Take notice that on March 3, 2009, Chandeleur Pipe Line Company
(Chandeleur) filed with the Commission an application pursuant to
section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and part 157 of
the Commission's regulations seeking an amendment of the existing
authorization issued to Chandeleur on May 11, 2004 \1\ in Docket No
CP04-48-000 (May 11 Order) for the acquisition from Chevron Natural Gas
Pipe Line LLC (Chevron) of Chevron's interest in the Mobile Area
Gathering System (MAGS), an offshore gathering pipeline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 107 FERC ] 61,162 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, by the application, Chandeleur requests that the
Commission amend the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
issued in the May 11 Order to authorize Chandeleur to acquire the
interest of Murphy Exploration & Production Company (Murphy) in the MO
908 Segment of the MAGS System. The acquisition by Chandeleur of this
remaining interest will complete Chandeleur's ownership of the MAGS
System.
    Copies of this filing are available for review at the Commission's
Washington, DC offices, or may be viewed on the Web at http://
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Jeffrey L. Kirk, at 4800 Fournace Place, Bellaire, Texas 77401, or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this application. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to this proceeding should file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10) by the
comment date, below. A person obtaining party status will be placed on
the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will
receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to the project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a) (1) (iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. Persons unable
to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the
protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: March 31, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-5684 Filed 3-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P