IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER:

The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task:

 Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add.

 Use the same font ( Times New Roman 8pt).

 Do not change table lines ( although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere.

 It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5.1, so the text will scramble.

If you have any problems or questions, please call your OEI Desk Officer. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ ORD/ National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory  RTP 2. OMB control number b. X None a__ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ 2080  new 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: Population based Pilot Study of Children's Environmental Health in Support of the National Children's Study 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable): 2187.01 9. Keywords: Maternal and Child Health, Public Health, Research 10. Abstract: The proposed study will be conducted by the Epidemiology and Biomarkers Branch, Human Studies Division, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, US EPA. The US EPA will conduct this research in partnership with the National Children's Study ( NCS) Program Office at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development ( NICHD) as well as the other lead agencies of the NCS: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ( NIEHS). This proposed data collection will pilot test logistics, protocols and procedures for the NCS, a long term study of the influence of environmental factors on child health and development. The goal is to improve the efficiency of the implementation of NCS by testing procedures for population based sampling and subject recruitment, proposed study logistics and estimates of subject burden, and evaluating data collection strategies including interviews and acquisition of biologic and environmental samples. Further details on the NCS, including the Study Plan, can be found at www. nationalchildrensstudy. gov. Approximately 10,000 households will be screened and 2,740 women will be enrolled who meet eligibility criteria, primarily defined by age and likelihood of pregnancy. The schedule of visits follows the proposed NCS Study Plan. Briefly, women who are planning pregnancy will be visited bimonthly, women with lower likelihood of pregnancy will be visited once; pregnant women will have a home visit in the first trimester and a clinic visit in the second and third trimester. A hospital visit at birth is planned as well as home visits to follow up with the mother and infant at 1, 6, 12, and 18 months of age. Data from interviews as well as biologic and environmental samples will address the relationship between common environmental factors and the physical and developmental growth of children. Qualitative assessments of the participants' perceptions about the study will be gathered at each visit to enhance the lessons that can be learned to aid the successful implementation of the NCS.

12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. P__ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. __ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? X Yes Q No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Dr. Pauline Mendola Phone: 919 966 6953 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13026-13030]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05522]

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

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0095; Notice 2]

NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2015-01: Recommended Best
Practices for Protective Orders and Settlement Agreements in Civil
Litigation

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

ACTION: Final notice.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA's ability to identify and define safety-related motor
vehicle defects relies in large part on manufacturers' self-reporting.
However, although federal regulations may require them to report
certain information to NHTSA, manufacturers do not always do so, or do
not do so in a timely manner. Additionally, the information a
manufacturer is required to report varies greatly depending on the
product and company size and purpose. Given these constraints, safety-
related information developed or discovered in private litigation is an
important resource for NHTSA.
    This Enforcement Guidance Bulletin sets forth NHTSA's recommended
guiding principles and best practices to be utilized in the context of
private litigation. To the extent protective orders, settlement
agreements, or other confidentiality provisions prohibit information
obtained in private litigation from being transmitted to NHTSA, such
limitations are contrary to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, its state corollaries, and sound principles of public
policy. Although such restrictions are generally prohibited by
applicable rules and law, the Agency recommends that litigants include
a specific provision in any protective order or settlement agreement
that provides for disclosure of relevant motor vehicle safety
information to NHTSA, regardless of any other restrictions on the
disclosure or dissemination of such information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kara Fischer, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-100, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 21, 2015, NHTSA published a
proposed Enforcement Guidance Bulletin setting forth what the Agency
had identified as best practices for private litigants utilizing
protective orders and settlement agreements with confidentiality
provisions. Recognizing the public interest in this topic, the Agency
solicited public comment before issuing a final Enforcement Guidance
Bulletin. In response to this request for comment, the Agency received
124 public submissions. Although several comments were submitted after
the stated closing date of October 19, 2015, all comments submitted to
the Federal Register were considered in formulating this final
Enforcement Guidance Bulletin regarding the use of confidentiality
provisions in private litigation.
    While the majority of comments fully supported the Enforcement
Guidance as drafted, some opined that the guidance was unnecessary as
manufacturers are already required to report certain information to the
Agency, and noted that NHTSA possesses the power to request additional
information from manufacturers through its investigative authority.
However, in order to fully exercise its regulatory authorities and
powers, the Agency must be made aware of the need to do so in the first
instance. Both Agency experience and that of several other commenters
provide several examples of a manufacturer failing to accurately and
timely report relevant safety-related information to NHTSA. The Agency
cannot request such information from the manufacturer if it is not
first made aware of potential underlying safety-related issues.
    Several comments also suggested that NHTSA adopt specific language
that could be utilized in protective orders and settlement agreements.
Because the facts and circumstances leading to

protective orders and settlement agreements vary, the Agency realizes
that best practices may likewise vary depending on circumstance.
Therefore, to the extent this Guidance contains any ``suggested'' or
exemplar language, it is just that--suggested. The Agency is not
endorsing any specific format or language that could be utilized. Such
a determination is best made by the parties based on the particular
facts and circumstances of a case. In addition, it also falls squarely
within the ambit of judicial discretion to determine whether a
confidentiality provision meets the requirements embodied by applicable
law and policy.
    A number of comments also discussed a legitimate concern regarding
the dissemination of proprietary information. Preliminarily, it should
be noted that protective orders and settlement agreements are not used
solely to prevent the dissemination of alleged proprietary information.
Although certain commenters disclaimed knowledge of such situations, a
number of commenters provided the Agency with specific statements and
examples from individuals who have been precluded from sharing any
information at all with NHTSA due to overbroad confidentiality
restrictions. Indeed, settlement agreements often require that the
parties not discuss the underlying facts or allegations of the case.
Therefore, the Agency respectfully disagrees with any notion that NHTSA
could request the information from the manufacturer after a plaintiff
or other party informs NHTSA of potential safety defects or concerns.
    In issuing this guidance, the Agency is not requesting or
advocating for the submission or provision of any particular
information or documentation in every case. However, in matters that
concern the safety of the American driving public and pedestrians,
entities and individuals must be permitted to disclose relevant
information to the Agency commanded by Congress to ensure that safety.
Private litigants should tailor the use of confidentiality provisions
in a way that protects legitimate proprietary interests while still
allowing for the provision of relevant information to NHTSA; the
parties themselves are in the best position to determine how that can
be accomplished. Should the parties reach an impasse, they can of
course make application to the court for appropriate relief. Given the
global interest in protecting and promoting public safety, the Agency
is confident that private litigants can and will agree on appropriate
processes or procedures that may be implemented to address any concerns
regarding the dissemination of proprietary information.
    Several commenters also proposed expanding this guidance to allow
for broader sharing of information and documents discovered through
litigation. While it is true that entities and individuals other than
NHTSA may have an interest in safety-related information generated in
litigation, the focus of this guidance is solely the disclosure of
safety information to NHTSA pursuant to its authority and
responsibility. This Enforcement Guidance does that and, hence, is
appropriately tailored.
    The Agency reiterates that in issuing this Enforcement Guidance,
NHTSA is not imposing new or additional reporting requirements. As
previously explained, this Enforcement Guidance Bulletin is fully
supported by existing law and policy. This Guidance communicates the
Agency's position that confidentiality provisions should not be used to
prevent safety-related information from reaching NHTSA. The Agency is
not endorsing or condoning any particular approach--judicial,
legislative, regulatory, or otherwise.
    In light of the foregoing, and after giving full consideration to
the concerns and views expressed in the submitted comments, and as
informed by the Agency's judgment and expertise, NHTSA provides the
following Enforcement Guidance for private litigants pertaining to the
use of confidentiality provisions in protective orders and settlement
agreements:

Enforcement Guidance

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (``NHTSA'' or
``the Agency'') is tasked with, among other things, setting Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (``FMVSS''), identifying and ensuring
the remedy of safety-related defects, and monitoring and enforcing
compliance with these standards to safeguard the well-being of the
American public. The only way the Agency can fully achieve these
objectives is if it has access to all necessary information, including
information discovered or identified in private litigation.
    NHTSA's ability to identify and define safety-related motor vehicle
defects relies in large part on timely and accurate reporting by
manufacturers, suppliers, and various parties throughout the industry,
whether by statutory or regulatory requirement or pursuant to
compulsory process. Although federal law may require industry
participants to report certain information to NHTSA, they do not always
do so, or do not do so in a timely manner. Additionally, the type of
information an industry participant is required to report varies
greatly depending on the product and company size and purpose. While
certain entities are required to report both deaths and injuries
resulting from the use of their products, others only must report
deaths. In those cases, in the absence of a fatal incident a
potentially defective product may not come to NHTSA's attention until
numerous people have sustained serious injury--if it ever reaches NHTSA
at all.
    Given these constraints, safety-related information developed or
discovered in private litigation is an important resource for NHTSA.
Yet confidentiality restrictions imposed as part of a protective order
or settlement agreement in private litigation--whether court-sanctioned
or privately negotiated--often prevent parties from providing
information about potentially dangerous products to the Agency. As many
scholarly articles have noted, and as history has borne out, such
restrictions have kept critical safety information out of the hands of
both regulators and the public. As a matter of law and sound public
policy, NHTSA cannot countenance this situation.
    It is well-established that confidentiality provisions, protective
orders, and the sealing of cases are appropriate litigation tools in
some circumstances. In most instances, however, the interests of public
health and safety will trump any confidentiality interests that might
be implicated. In matters that concern the safety of the American
driving public and pedestrians, it is important that entities and
individuals are not prevented from providing relevant information to
the very Agency tasked with ensuring that safety.
    To the extent protective orders, settlement agreements, or other
confidentiality provisions prohibit motor vehicle safety-related
information from being transmitted to NHTSA, such limitations are
contrary to established principles of public policy and law, including
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and its state
corollaries which require a showing of good cause to impose
confidentiality. The recent General Motors ignition switch and Takata
airbag recalls are but two examples of how vital early identification
of motor vehicle risks or defects is for the safety and welfare of the
American public.
    To further the important public policies discussed above, the
Agency encourages and recommends that parties and courts seek to
include a

provision in any protective order or settlement agreement that--despite
other restrictions on confidentiality-- specifically allows for
disclosure of relevant motor vehicle safety information to NHTSA and
other appropriate government authorities.

I. Legal and Policy Background

    ``Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no
longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case.'' Brown v.
Advantage Eng'g, Inc., 960 F.2d 1013, 1016 (11th Cir. 1992). As a
general rule, the public is permitted ``access to litigation documents
and information produced during discovery.'' Phillips v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). Where there is a
presumptive right of public access under the federal rules, courts have
discretion upon a showing of ``good cause'' to restrict access to
documents or information ``to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.'' Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(c)(1). As the Seventh Circuit has stated, Rule 26(c)'s good cause
requirement means that, ``[a]s a general proposition, pretrial
discovery must take place in the public unless compelling reasons exist
for denying the public access to the proceedings.'' Am. Telephone and
Telegraph Co. v. Grady, 594 F.2d 594, 596 (7th Cir. 1978); see also,
Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858 F.2d 775, 790 (1st Cir.
1988). Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in determining when to issue
a protective order and the degree and scope of protection required.
Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984).
    General allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples
or articulated reasoning, however, are insufficient to warrant such an
order. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th
Cir. 1992); Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d
Cir. 1986). Rather, the burden is on the party seeking protection from
disclosure to ``allege specific prejudice or harm'' that will result if
the protective order is not granted. In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied,
132 S. Ct. 1867 (2012); In re Terra Intern., Inc., 134 F.3d 302 (5th
Cir. 1998) (good cause requirement contemplates a particular and
specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from conclusory
statements); Glenmeade Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476 (3d Cir.
1995) (generalized allegations of injury insufficient to satisfy the
good cause requirement for issuance of protective order); Iowa Beef
Processors, Inc. v. Bagley, 601 F.2d 949, 954 n. 5 (8th Cir. 1979)
(party seeking protective order bears burden of making ``good cause''
showing that the information being sought falls within scope of Rule
26(c) and that moving party will be harmed by its disclosure).
    Even if a court concludes that such harm will result from
disclosure, it still must proceed to balance ``the public and private
interests to decide whether a protective order is necessary.''
Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211. See Shingara v. Skiles, 420 F.3d 301, 308
(3d Cir. 2005) (``[A] court always must consider the public interest
when deciding whether to impose a protective order.''); Glenmede Trust
Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995) (``[T]he analysis [of
good cause] should always reflect a balancing of private versus public
interests.''). In doing so, courts consider a number of factors,
including:

    (1) whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests; (2)
whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or
for an improper purpose; (3) whether disclosure of the information
will cause a party embarrassment; (4) whether confidentiality is
being sought over information important to public health and safety;
(5) whether the sharing of information among litigants will promote
fairness and efficiency; (6) whether a party benefitting from the
order of confidentiality is a public entity or official; and (7)
whether the case involves issues important to the public.

Glenmede Trust Co., 56 F.3d at 483. See also In re Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d at 424.
    The public's interest in access to court records is strongest when
the records concern public health or safety. See, e.g., Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C, 710 F.2d 1165, 1180-81 (6th Cir.
1983) (vacating district court's sealing of court records involving the
content of tar and nicotine in cigarettes and emphasizing that the
public had particularly strong interest in the court records at issue
because the ``litigation potentially involves the health of citizens
who have an interest in knowing the accurate `tar' and nicotine content
of the various brands of cigarettes on the market''); see also United
States v. General Motors, 99 FRD. 610, 612 (D.D.C. 1983) (the ``greater
the public's interest in the case the less acceptable are restraints on
the public's access to the proceedings''); In re Air Crash at
Lexington, Ky., August 27, 2006, No. 5:06-CV-316-KSF, 2009 WL 16836289,
at *8 (E.D. Ky. June 16, 2009) (noting the ``public has an interest in
ascertaining what evidence and records the . . . Court [has] relied
upon in reaching [its] decisions,'' and that ``the public interest in a
plane crash that resulted in the deaths of forty-nine people is quite
strong, as is the public interest in air safety''). In balancing the
privacy interests of the party seeking protection, a court ``must
consider the need for public dissemination, in order to alert other
consumers to potential dangers posed by the product.'' Koval v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 694, 699, 610 NE.2d 1199, 1202 (Com. Pl.
1990) (citing Hendricks v. Jeep Corp. (D. Mont. June 3, 1986), case No.
CV-82-092-M-PGH (unreported) and United States v. Hooker Chemicals &
Plastics Corp., 90 FRD. 421 (W.D.N.Y. 1981)).
    A number of states have enacted ``Sunshine in Litigation'' acts,
which thrust the interests of public health and safety into the
forefront by preventing parties from concealing safety hazards through
settlement agreements or protective orders. Some, such as Florida,
broadly forbid courts from entering protective orders that may have the
``purpose or effect of concealing a public hazard or any information
concerning a public hazard'' or that ``may be useful to members of the
public in protecting themselves from injury.'' Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec.
69.081 (West 2015). Others, such as Texas, establish a presumption that
court records--including all documents filed with the court, unfiled
settlement agreements, and unfiled discovery documents ``concerning
matters that have a probable adverse effect upon the general public
health or safety''--are open to the general public; records may be
sealed only upon a showing that there is a specific, serious, and
substantial interest in nondisclosure which clearly outweighs the
presumption of public access and any probable effect on public health
or safety. Tex. R. Civ. P. 76a.
    A federal corollary introduced on May 14, 2015, currently pending
before the House of Representatives, H.R. 2336 (114th Congress, 2015-
2017), would create a presumption against protective orders and the
sealing of settlements and cases ``in which the pleadings state facts
that are relevant to the protection of public health or safety.'' The
presumption would control unless a party asks a judge to find that a
specific and substantial interest in maintaining secrecy outweighs the
public health and safety interest and that the order is no broader than
necessary to protect the privacy interest asserted. Id. It would also
prohibit a court from approving or enforcing a provision that restricts
a party from disclosing public health or safety information to any
federal or state agency with authority to enforce laws regulating an
activity related to such information. Id.

    Several states have taken a broader approach, enacting statutes and
court rules to address the question of whether or not courts should
enforce confidentiality agreements, regardless of the subject matter.
The common theme of these statutes is a balancing of interests. For
example, drawing upon federal precedent requiring consideration of the
public interest at stake, Idaho Court Administrative Rule 32 directs
courts considering shielding requests to first determine whether the
interest in privacy or public disclosure predominates and to ``fashion
the least restrictive exception from disclosure consistent with privacy
interests.'' Idaho R. Admin. 32(f). See also Mich. Ct. R. 8.119(F)
(records may be sealed upon showing of good cause and that no less
restrictive means are available to protect the interest asserted);
D.S.C. LCivR 5.03 (party must state why sealing is necessary and
explain why less restrictive alternatives will not afford adequate
protection). Indiana's legislature went a step further, requiring an
affirmative showing that a public interest will be protected by sealing
a record, and mandating that records shall be unsealed as soon as
possible after the reason for sealing them no longer exists. Ind. Code
Sec.  5-14-3-5.5 (2011). See also, Richard Rosen, Settlement Agreements
in Com. Disputes, n. 103 Sec.  10.04 (2015) (citing to statutory
provisions in California, Colorado, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire,
New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, and Utah). Although the
specifics of each provision vary, all are consistent with the notion
that the safety of the public should be given considerable weight in
determining whether to restrict access to information.
    Basic contract principles also dictate that the public health and
safety concern should be of paramount significance in drafting and
approving protective orders and settlement agreements. While parties
are generally free to contract as they see fit, ``courts will not
hesitate to declare void as against public policy contractual
provisions which clearly tend to the injury of the public in some
way.'' 17A C.J.S. Contracts Sec.  281 (2015) (internal citations
omitted); see Thomas James Associates, Inc. v. Jameson, 102 F.3d 60, 66
(2d Cir. 1996) (``[C]ourts must not be timid in voiding agreements
which tend to injure the public good or contravene some established
interest of society.'') (internal quotations and citations omitted);
see also Vasquez v. Glassboro Service Ass'n, Inc., 83 N.J. 86, 415 A.2d
1156 (1980) (citing text for general proposition that courts have broad
power to declare agreements violative of public policy).
    ``While the term `public policy' lacks precise definition, . . . it
may be stated generally as a legal principle which holds that no one
may lawfully do that which has a tendency to injure the public welfare.
. . . '' O'Hara v. Ahlgren, Blumenfeld and Kempster, 537 NE.2d 730
(Ill. 1989). ``An agreement is against public policy if it is injurious
to the interests of the public, contravenes some established interest
of society, violates some public statute, is against good morals, tends
to interfere with the public welfare or safety, or is at war with the
interests of society or is in conflict with the morals of the time.'' E
& B Mktg. Enterprises, Inc. v. Ryan, 568 NE.2d 339, 209 Ill. App. 3d
626 (1st Dist. 1991). See also Johnson v. Peterbilt of Fargo, Inc., 438
NW.2d 162 (N.D. 1989) (``Public policy, with respect to contract
provisions, is a principle of law whereby a contract provision will not
be enforced if it has a tendency to be injurious to the public or
against the public good.''). An agreement is unenforceable if the
interest in its enforcement is outweighed by the public policy harmed
by enforcement of the agreement. 17A C.J.S. Contracts Sec.  281
(citation omitted).
    In fact, the Florida Sunshine in Litigation Act specifically
codifies this concept: ``Any portion of an agreement or contract which
has the purpose or effect of concealing a public hazard, any
information concerning a public hazard, or any information which may be
useful to members of the public in protecting themselves from injury
which may result from the public hazard, is void, contrary to public
policy, and may not be enforced.'' Fla. Stat. Ann. Sec.  69.081(4). See
also Ark. Code Ann. Sec.  16-55-122 (2011) (rendering void any
settlement provision purporting to restrict disclosure of an
environmental hazard). Although the Florida provision broadly addresses
any contract, this notion is particularly applicable in the context of
protective orders or settlement agreement terms that prevent litigants
from disclosing information to NHTSA.
    The good cause requirements found in Rule 26 and related state
provisions, and the doctrines underlying NHTSA's own regulations all
advance the important public policy of maintaining and preserving the
health and welfare of the public. This strong policy has been realized
and enforced by the refusal of many courts and litigants to engage in
protective orders or settlement agreements that keep regulators and the
public in the dark about potential safety hazards. See Culinary Foods,
Inc. v. Raychem Corp., 151 F.R.D. 297 (N.D. Ill.), clarified 153 F.R.D.
614 (1993) (any information as to whether products liability
defendant's products were dangerous, and whether defendant knew of
dangers and either failed to take action or attempted to conceal
information, would not be encompassed by protective order under
discovery rule); Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 113 F.R.D. 86, 87
(D.N.J. 1986) (``Discovery may well reveal that a product is defective
and its continued use dangerous to the consuming public. . . . It is
inconceivable to this court that under such circumstances the public
interest is not a vital factor to be considered in determining whether
to further conceal that information and whether a court should be a
party to that concealment.''); Toe v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. (Iowa
District Court, Polk County, No. CL 106914) (Order on Defendant's
Motion to Continue Protective Order, Jan. 18, 2012) (unsealing
transcript where confidential documents related to tire defect were
discussed). See also, Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Elk Run Coal Co.,
Inc., 291 F.R.D. 114 (S.D.W.Va. 2013) (good cause did not exist for
issuance of protective order in environmental group's suit against
company because there was no specific showing of identifiable harm
company would suffer and case involved issues of importance to public
health and safety); In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in
Oregon, 661 F.3d 417 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 1867 (2011)
(private interest in nondisclosure was not outweighed by public
interests in protecting public safety).

II. Recommended Best Practices

    Consistent with the foregoing legal and policy background, it is
NHTSA's position that protective orders and settlement agreements
should not be used to withhold critical safety information from the
Agency, either intentionally or unintentionally. This is not to say
that parties should not enter into these agreements. To the contrary,
these tools are often necessary to promote full and complete
disclosure, to prevent abuses of the discovery process, and to protect
legitimate privacy and proprietary interests. However, as explained
above, they cannot be used to preclude the disclosure of relevant
safety-related information to regulatory agencies and other government
authorities. To do so is contrary to the underlying law and policies
inherent in Rule 26 and state corollaries, and against sound public
policy.
    NHTSA recommends that all parties seek to include a provision in
any protective order or settlement agreement

that--despite whatever other restrictions on confidentiality are
imposed, and whether entered into by consent or judicial fiat--
specifically allows for disclosure of relevant motor vehicle safety
information to NHTSA and other applicable governmental authorities.
Such a provision could be stated generically, providing that nothing in
the order or agreement shall be construed to prohibit either party from
disclosing information to a regulatory agency or governmental entity
who has an interest in the subject matter of the underlying suit. For
example, the provision could state that ``discovery material may only
be disclosed to . . . governmental entities with an interest in the
public safety hazards involving [description of product/vehicle].'' Or,
it could specifically address NHTSA's interest, as contemplated by the
recent NHTSA Consent Order requiring Chrysler to ``develop and
implement a plan ensuring that, in safety-related litigation, FCA US
uses its best efforts to include in any protective order, settlement
agreement, or equivalent, a provision that explicitly allows FCA US to
provide information and documents to NHTSA.'' See In re: FCA US LLC,
AQ14-003, July 24, 2015 Consent Order, Attachment A, p. 27 at ]
(B)(12), available at www.safercar.gov/rs/chrysler/pddfs/FCA_Consent_Order.pdf. Private litigants should tailor the use of
confidentiality provisions in a way that protects legitimate
proprietary interests while still allowing for the provision of
relevant information to NHTSA. The Agency is not endorsing any
particular language that should be utilized; the parties themselves are
in the best position to determine how that can be accomplished. Given
the global interest in protecting and promoting public safety, the
Agency is confident that in employing the use of confidentiality
provisions, private litigants can and will agree on appropriate
processes or procedures that may be implemented to address any concerns
regarding the dissemination of proprietary information.
    Whatever the language, confidentiality agreements and protective
orders should not be utilized to prevent the parties from providing
information that implicates public safety to the very entity charged
with ensuring and protecting that safety. Instead, such orders and
agreements should clearly authorize and facilitate the disclosure of
safety-related information to NHTSA. Such a provision is consistent
with, and in some cases mandated by, federal and state statutory
schemes and regulations and applicable case law, and is wholly in line
with principles of sound public policy.
    Applicability/Legal Statement: This Enforcement Guidance Bulletin
sets forth NHTSA's current interpretation and thinking on this topic
and guiding principles and best practices to be utilized in the context
of private litigation. This Bulletin is not a final agency action and
is intended as guidance only. This Bulletin is not intended, nor can it
be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party against
NHTSA, the Department of Transportation, or the United States.
Moreover, these recommended practices do not establish any defense to
any violations of the statutes and regulations that NHTSA administers.
This Bulletin may be revised in writing without notice to reflect
changes in NHTSA's evaluation and analysis, or to clarify and update
text.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30101, et seq.; delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95(a), 501.2(a)(1), 501.5.

    Issued: February 29, 2016.
Mark R. Rosekind,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-05522 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: December 29, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 77230-77232]
[DOCID:fr29de05-113]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53018; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-78]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to New
York Stock Exchange Rules 35 (``Floor Employees to be Registered'') and
301 (``Proposed Transfer or Lease of Membership'')

December 23, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on December 13, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The proposed change consists of amendments to NYSE Rules 35
(``Floor Employees to be Registered'') and 301 (``Proposed Transfer or
Lease of Membership'') which would limit access to the Exchange Floor
until fingerprint reports have been properly processed and approved and
would require an alternative background check for persons whose
fingerprints are deemed illegible. The text of the proposed rule change
is available on NYSE's Web site (http://www.nyse.com), at NYSE's Office

of the Secretary, 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, NYSE 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. NYSE 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
    NYSE Rule 35 governs the issuance of Floor tickets (e.g., Regular
Tickets and Special Tickets) to Floor employees, which enables them to
enter upon the trading Floor. NYSE Rule 35.70 requires the
fingerprinting of prospective employees of members and member
organizations. Similarly, NYSE Rule 301.23 requires that prospective
members be fingerprinted.
    Security concerns have suggested a tightening of these rules in two
respects: (1) That access to the Floor be denied for persons
fingerprinted for the first time until the fingerprinting results have
properly been processed and accepted; and (2) that those persons whose
fingerprints cannot be read (i.e., are illegible) be subject to an
alternative background check acceptable to the Exchange to cover the
same criminal convictions included by fingerprint type. In order for a
background check to be acceptable to the Exchange, it would, at a
minimum, have to disclose the same arrest records which the fingerprint
check would for all fifty states and, where the applicant is foreign,
through the records of Interpol. Amendments are also proposed to
reflect the fact that the Exchange no longer accepts fingerprint cards,
but rather processes them through agents.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NYSE Information Memo 04-53, dated October 8, 2004
(announcing that as of October 29, 2004, the Exchange would stop
accepting new fingerprints from its members and member organizations
and other persons and entities subject to a fingerprinting
requirement under Section 17 of the Exchange Act, but noting that
certain members unable to submit fingerprints through another SRO
would still be able to receive Exchange fingerprint services). Upon
the completion of the reorganization of the Exchange proposed for
January of 2006, NYSE believes that there should no longer be
members unable to utilize another SRO.

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

Background
    Rule 17f-2 \4\ under the Exchange Act sets out the requirements for
the fingerprinting of persons employed in the securities industry. The
Exchange has adopted procedures to comply with the regulations in order
to assure that appropriate persons are fingerprinted and the results of
the fingerprinting are reviewed.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 240.17f-2.
    \5\ See NYSE Information Memos 76-30 dated June 25, 1976 and 76-
53, dated December 31, 1976, announcing, respectively, the adoption
of Exchange Act Rule 17f-2 and SEC approval of the Exchange's plan
for the processing of fingerprints. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 13105 (December 23, 1976), 42 FR 753 (January 4, 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to providing member firm employees with Floor ticket access
to the Trading Floor and Exchange facilities, and pursuant to NYSE
Rules 35 and 345.11 (``Employees--Registration, Approval,
Records''),\6\ a member firm must electronically submit a Form U4 \7\
via the Central Registration Depository system (``CRD'').\8\ The hiring
member firm and the employee are responsible for confirming the
accuracy of the information included on the Form U4.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NYSE Rule 345.11 requires, among other things, member firms
to thoroughly investigate the previous record of persons whom they
contemplate employing.
    \7\ Form U4 includes information such as an individual's ten-
year employment history, five-year residential history, education,
disciplinary actions, disclosure information, and the self-
regulatory organization of registration.
    \8\ The CRD is a registration and licensing system for the U.S.
securities industry, state and Federal regulators, and SROs. The
NASD operates the CRD pursuant to policies developed jointly with
the North American Securities Administrators Association, Inc.
    \9\ Through CRD the accuracy of the disclosure portion (e.g.,
criminal disclosures, regulatory action disclosures) of Form U4
pursuant to prior submitted filings and fingerprinting is confirmed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Members and member organizations currently have up to 30 days from
the date of the electronic filing of the Form U4 application in Web CRD
for the fingerprints to be submitted. Applicants and member
organizations sometimes wait until the end of the 30-day period to
submit fingerprints, whereas results from the FBI can be reported
within 24-48 hours. It is proposed that prospective new Floor employees
not be admitted to the Floor until the results of the fingerprinting
have been posted to the CRD, reviewed and approved. While the physical
security of the Floor is the primary factor in the proposed changes, it
is hoped that with this proposed requirement, member organizations will
be encouraged to act more promptly.
    An applicant who has been fingerprinted previously with a member or
registered broker-dealer would be granted a conditional approval,
pending review of the fingerprint results submitted by the current
employer, assuming the prior employment was within ninety days of the
application. Any such applicant would have been under a duty to
disclose any reportable events during such employment to a supervising
broker-dealer who was charged with a duty to report statutory
disqualifications. In addition, the applicant would, of course, have a
duty to disclose any reportable events during the intervening period in
his or her application.
    A separate issue is raised where applicants submit fingerprints,
which cannot be read (i.e., illegible fingerprints). Under Exchange Act
Rule 17f-2(a)(l)(iv),\10\ when fingerprints are rejected three times as
``illegible'' by the FBI, the individual is exempt from further
fingerprinting.\11\ Exchange Act Rule 17f-2 does not require an
alternate means of conducting a background check. To address this
background check lapse, the NYSE's proposed amendment goes beyond the
requirements of the foregoing rule and requires that members and member
organizations conduct an alternative background check acceptable to the
Exchange. Any such background check, in order to be acceptable to the
Exchange, would have to cover the same criminal convictions included by
fingerprint type on a fifty state basis and, if the applicant is
foreign, an Interpol or other multi-national database check. These
checks are generally conducted by non-governmental agencies. Member
organizations would be expected to use appropriate due diligence in the
selection of investigative agencies for such background checks,
assuring their ability to satisfactorily research all pertinent
databases. As above, conditional approval would be available to persons
previously the subject of a background check, provided employment with
a member or registered broker-dealer terminated within ninety days of
the applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.17f-2(a)(1)(iv).
    \11\ In this instance, CRD also conducts a ``name check.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed revisions to NYSE Rules 35.70 and 301.23 will also
reflect the fact that the Exchange no longer receives fingerprint cards
directly, but does so through agents of the Exchange.\12\ However, the
Exchange's Membership Services Department will process the fingerprints
of member applicants not associated with broker-dealers (not required
to be registered on CRD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NYSE Rule 345.18 provides that any filing or submission to
be made with the Exchange under this rule, where appropriate, may be
made with a properly authorized agent acting on behalf of the
Exchange and shall be deemed to be a filing with the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NYSE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and in
particular, with the requirements of Sections 6(b)(5) \13\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
national market system, and in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. NYSE believes that the proposed rule change, by
strengthening the security of the Exchange Floor, will help assure the
uninterrupted trading and maintenance of the market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposal does not impose any burden
on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Exchange Act.

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

    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 Exchange 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-2005-78 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-78. 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 the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of NYSE. 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-2005-78 and should be submitted on or before January 19, 2006.

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

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

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-8067 Filed 12-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


 [Federal Register Volume 76, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2011)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 12308] [FR Doc No: C1-2011-2281]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1174]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

Correction

    In proposed rule document 2011-2281 beginning on page 5769 in the  issue of Wednesday, February 2, 2011 make the following correction:

Sec.  67.4  [Corrected]

    On page 5772, in Sec.  67.4, preceding the last table, add the  heading ``Doniphan County, Kansas, and Incorporated Areas''.

[FR Doc. C1-2011-2281 Filed 2-4-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5644-5646]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63772; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-006]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Regarding the Listing of Option Series With $1 Strike
Prices

January 25, 2011.
    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 January 12, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE''or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE proposes to amend its rules regarding the listing of $1 strike
prices. The text of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .01 to
Rule 5.5 to improve the operation of the $1 Strike Program.
    Currently, the $1 Strike Program only allows the listing of new $1
strikes within $5 of the previous day's closing price. In certain
circumstances this has led to situations where there are no at-the-
money $1 strikes for a day, despite significant demand. For instance,
on November 15, 2010, the underlying shares of Isilon Systems Inc.
opened at $33.83. It had closed the previous trading day at $26.29.
Options were available in $1 intervals up to $31, but because of the
restriction to only listing within $5 of the previous close, the
following strikes were not permitted to be added during the day: $32,
$33, $34, $36, $37 and $38.
    The Exchange proposes that $1 interval strike prices be allowed to
be added immediately within $5 of the official opening price in the
primary listing market. Thus, on any day, $1 Strike Program strikes may
be added within $5 of either the opening price or the previous day's
closing price. On occasion, the price movement in the underlying
security has been so great that listing within $5 of either the
previous day's closing price or the day's opening price will leave a
gap in the continuity of strike prices. For instance, if an issue
closes at $14 one day, and the next day opens above $27, the $21 and
$22 strikes will be more than $5 from either benchmark. The Exchange
proposes that any such discontinuity be avoided by allowing the listing
of all $1 Strike Program strikes between the closing price and the
opening price.
    Additionally, issues that are in the $1 Strike Program may
currently have $2.50 interval strike prices added that are more than $5
from the underlying price or are more than a nine months to expiration
(long-term options series). In such cases, the listing of a $2.50
interval strike may lead to discontinuities in strike prices and also a
lack of parallel strikes in different expiration months of the same
issue. For instance, under the current rules, the Exchange may list a
$12.50 strike in a $1 Strike Program issue where the underlying price
is $24. This allowance was provided to avoid too large of an interval
between the standard strike prices of $10 and $15. The unintended
consequence, however, is that if the underlying price should decline to
$16, the Exchange would not be able to list a $12 or $13 strike. If the
underlying stayed near this level at expiration, a new expiration month
would have the $12 and $13 strike but not the $12.50, leading to a
disparity in strike intervals in different months of the same option
class. This has also led to investor confusion, as they regularly
request the addition of inappropriate strikes so as to roll a position
from one month to another at the same strike level.
    To avoid this problem, the Exchange may not list series with $2.50
intervals (e.g., $12.50, $17.50) below $50 under Interpretation and
Policy .05 of Rule 5.5 ($2.50 Strike Price Program) for any issue
included within the $1 Strike Program, including long term option
series. At each standard $5 increment strike more than $5 from the
price of the underlying security, the Exchange proposes to list the
strike $2 above the standard strike for each interval above the price
of the underlying security, and $2 below the standard strike, for each
interval below the price of the underlying security, provided it meets
the Options Listing Procedures Plan (``OLPP'') Provisions in Rule
5.5A.\5\ For

instance, if the underlying security was trading at $19, the Exchange
could list, for each month, the following strikes: $3, $5, $8, $10,
$13, $14, $15, $16, $17, $18, $19, $20, $21, $22, $23, $24, $25, $27,
$30, $32, $35, and $37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 5.5A codifies the limitation on strike price ranges
outlined in the OLPP, which, except in limited circumstances,
prohibits options series with an exercise price more than 100% above
or below the price of the underlying security if that price is $20
or less. If the price of the underlying security is greater than
$20, the Exchange shall not list new options series with an exercise
price more than 50% above or below the price of the underlying
security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Instead of $2.50 strikes for long-term options, the Exchange
proposes to list one long-term $1 Strike option series strike in the
interval between each standard $5 strike, with the $1 Strike being $2
above the standard strike price for each interval above the price of
the underlying security, and $2 below the standard strike price, for
each interval below the price of the underlying security. In addition,
the Exchange may list the long-term $1 strike which is $2 above the
standard strike just below the underlying price at the time of listing,
and may add additional long term options series strikes as the price of
the underlying security moves, consistent with the OLPP. For instance,
if the underlying is trading at $21.25, long-term strikes could be
listed at $15, $18, $20, $22, $25, $27, and $30. If the underlying
subsequently moved to $22, the $32 strike could be added. If the
underlying moved to $19.75, the $13, $10, $8, and $5 strikes could be
added.
    The Exchange also proposes that additional long-term option strikes
may not be listed within $1 of an existing strike until less than nine
months to expiration.
    Finally, the Exchange represents that it has the necessary systems
capacity to support the small increase in new options series that will
result from the proposed changes to the $1 Strike Program.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act \6\ and the rules and regulations thereunder and, in
particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\
Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. In particular, the proposed rule change seeks to
reduce investor confusion and address issues that have arisen in the
operation of the $1 Strike Program by providing a consistent
application of strike price intervals for issues in the $1 Strike
Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal is substantially similar to that of
another exchange that has been approved by the Commission.\11\
Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63773 (January 25,
2011) (SR-NYSEAmex-2010-109). See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 63770 (January 25, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-106).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-CBOE-2011-006 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-CBOE-2011-006. 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-
CBOE-2011-006 and should be submitted on or before February 22, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-2119 Filed 1-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28767-28768]
[FR Doc No: E9-14254]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0001-N-13]

Notice and Request for Comments

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Requirements (ICRs) abstracted below have been forwarded to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The
ICRs describe the nature of the information collections and their
expected burdens. The Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collections of information
was published on April 6, 2009 (74 FR 15588).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 17, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Brogan, Office of Safety,
Planning and Evaluation Division, RRS-21, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 17, Washington, DC
20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>), or Ms. Nakia Jackson, Office of
Information Technology, RAD-20, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave., SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone:
(202) 493-6073). (These telephone numbers are not toll-free.)

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13, Section 2, 109 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified as revised
at 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part
1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking public
comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve
paperwork packages. 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.5, 1320.8(d)(1),
1320.12. On April 6, 2009, FRA published a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register soliciting comment on ICRs that the agency was seeking OMB
approval. 74 FR 15588. FRA received no comments after issuing this 60-
day notice. Accordingly, DOT announces that these information
collection activities have been re-evaluated and certified under 5 CFR
1320.5(a) and forwarded to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5
CFR 1320.12(c).
    Before OMB decides whether to approve these proposed collections of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b); 5 CFR 1320.12(d). Federal law requires OMB to approve or
disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30 day
notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also
60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. OMB believes that the 30 day notice
informs the regulated community to file relevant comments and affords
the agency adequate time to digest public comments before it renders a
decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, respondents should
submit their respective comments to OMB within 30 days of publication
to best ensure having their full effect. 5 CFR 1320.12(c); see also 60
FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995.
    The summaries below describe the nature of the information
collection requirements (ICRs) and the expected burden. The current
requirements are being submitted for clearance by OMB as required by
the PRA.
    Title: Stenciling Reporting Mark on Freight Cars.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0520.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Abstract: Title 49, Section 215.301 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, sets forth certain requirements that must be followed by
railroad carriers and private

car owners relative to identification marks on railroad equipment. FRA,
railroads, and the public refer to the stenciling to identify freight
cars.
    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 18,750 hours.
    Title: Rear-End Marking Devices.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0523.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Abstract: The collection of information is set forth under 49 CFR
Part 221 which requires railroads to furnish a detailed description of
the type of marking device to be used for the trailing end of rear cars
in order to ensure rear cars meet minimum standards for visibility and
display. Railroads are required to furnish a certification that the
device has been tested in accordance with current ``Guidelines For
Testing of Rear End Marking Devices.'' Additionally, railroads are
required to furnish detailed test records which include the testing
organizations, description of tests, number of samples tested, and the
test results in order to demonstrate compliance with the performance
standard.
    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 89 hours.
    Title: Locomotive Certification (Noise Compliance Regulations).
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0527.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Railroads.
    Abstract: Part 210 of title 49 of the United States Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) pertains to FRA's noise enforcement procedures which
encompass rail yard noise source standards published by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA has the authority to set
these standards under the Noise Control Act of 1972. The information
collected by FRA under Part 210 is necessary to ensure compliance with
EPA noise standards for new locomotives.
    Annual Estimated Burden Hours: 2,767 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding these information collections to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, 725 Seventeenth Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20503, Attention:
FRA Desk Officer. Alternatively, comments may be sent via e-mail to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget, at the following address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Comments are invited on the following: Whether the proposed
collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Department, including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of
the burden of the proposed information collections; ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collections of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
    A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 11, 2009.
Donna M. Alwine,
Acting Director, Office of Financial Management, Federal Railroad
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-14254 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34413-34415]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14169]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0138]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events, Nanticoke River;
Bivalve, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing special local regulations
during the ``Coastal Aquatics Swim Team Open Water Summer Shore Swim'',
a marine event to be held on the waters of the Nanticoke River at
Bivalve, MD on June 29, 2014. These special local regulations are
necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during
the event. This action is intended to temporarily restrict vessel
traffic in a portion of the Nanticoke River during the event.

DATES: This rule is effective from June 17, 2014 through June 29, 2014
and enforceable from 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on June 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2014-0138]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 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 Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, MD;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl
Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Regulatory History and Information

    On March 27, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Special Local Regulations for Marine Events,
Nanticoke River; Bivalve, MD'' in the Federal Register (79 FR 17082).
We received no comments on the proposed rule. No public meeting was
requested, and none was held.
    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3))
authorizes an agency to publish a rule less than 30 days before its
effective date when the agency for good cause finds that waiting 30
days would be ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making
this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal
Register. As stated above, we published the NPRM on these special local
regulations on March 27, 2014 (79 FR 17082), and we received no
comments on the proposed rule. Delaying this regulation's effective
date for 30 days would be impracticable and would be contrary to the
public interest as immediate action is needed to ensure the safety of
the event participants, spectator craft, and other vessels transiting
the event area. A special local regulation is in the public interest in
making this a safe event. The Coast Guard will provide advance
notifications to users of the affected waterways of the safety zone via
marine information broadcasts and local notice to mariners.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the
rule is to ensure safety of life on navigable waters of the United
States during the Coastal Aquatics Swim Team Open Water Summer Shore
Swim event.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the NPRM. No
public meeting was requested and none was held.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on these statutes and executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563,
Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) The special local regulations will be enforced
for only 4\1/2\ hours; (2) the regulated area has been narrowly
tailored to impose the least impact on general navigation, yet provide
the level of safety deemed necessary; (3) persons and vessels will be
able to transit safely around the regulated area; and (4) the Coast
Guard will provide advance notification of the special local
regulations to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners
and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of the
Nanticoke River encompassed within the special local regulations from 8
a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on June 29, 2014. For the reasons discussed in the
Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

 9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves special local regulations issued in
conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of

Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add a temporary section, Sec.  100.35-T05-0138 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35-T05-0138  Special Local Regulations for Marine Events,
Nanticoke River; Bivalve, MD.

    (a) Regulated area. The following location is a regulated area: All
waters of the Nanticoke River, bounded by a line drawn from a point on
the shoreline at latitude 38[deg]19'15'' N, longitude 075[deg]53'13''
W, thence westerly to latitude 38[deg]19'23'' N, longitude
075[deg]53'45'' W, thence southerly to latitude 38[deg]18'51'' N,
longitude 075[deg]54'01'' W, thence easterly to latitude 38[deg]18'42''
N, longitude 075[deg]53'31'' W, located at Bivalve, MD. All coordinates
reference Datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions. (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has
been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
    (2) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by
Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore with a commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    (3) Participant means all persons and vessels participating in the
Coastal Aquatics Swim Team Open Water Summer Shore Swim event under the
auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and
approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Baltimore.
    (c) Special local regulations. (1) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander
may forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons in the
regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel
or person in the regulated area shall immediately comply with the
directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the
area, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    (2) With the exception of participants, all persons desiring to
transit the regulated area must first obtain authorization from the
Captain of the Port Baltimore or his designated representative. To seek
permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Baltimore and
his designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number
410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
All Coast Guard vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted
on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
    (3) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or
the operation of any participant in the event, at any time it is deemed
necessary for the protection of life or property.
    (4) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information
broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date
and times.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m.
to 12:30 p.m. on June 29, 2014.

    Dated: May 20, 2014.
Kevin C. Kiefer,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2014-14169 Filed 6-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 149 (Thursday, August 4, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47796-47797]
[FR Doc No: 2022-16676]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-288, OMB Control No. 3235-0325]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request: Extension: Form F-4

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

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Form F-4 (17 CFR 239.34) is used by foreign issuers to register
securities in business combinations, reorganizations and exchange
offers pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.).
The information collected is

intended to ensure that the information required to be filed by the
Commission permits verification of compliance with securities law
requirements and assures the public availability of such information.
Form F-4 takes approximately 1,437.948 hours per response and is filed
by approximately 39 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 1,437.948
hours per response (359.487 hours) is prepared by the registrant for a
total annual reporting burden of 14,020 hours (359.487 hours per
response x 39 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) whether this proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication by October 3, 2022.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comment to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John
Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: July 29, 2022.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-16676 Filed 8-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P