[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50499-50500]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20505]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0227; FRL 9521-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Servicing of Motor Vehicle Air
Conditioners (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 20, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0227, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, Mailcode: 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail
to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sally Hamlin, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Office of Air and Radiation, Mail Code 6205J, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On May 4, 2012 (77 FR 26544), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0227, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives
them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, confidential business information (CBI), or other information
whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Servicing of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners (Renewal).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1617.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0247.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2012.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
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 OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in Title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 609 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Act)
provides general guidelines for motor vehicle air conditioning (MVAC)
refrigerant handling and MVAC servicing. It states that ``no person
repairing or servicing motor vehicles for consideration may perform any
service on a motor vehicle air conditioner involving the refrigerant
for such air conditioner without properly using approved refrigerant
recovery and/or recovery and recycling equipment (hereafter referred to
as ``refrigerant handling equipment'') and no such person may perform
such service unless such person has been properly trained and
certified.''
    In 1992, EPA developed regulations under section 609 (57 FR 31242)
that were codified at 40 CFR part 82, subpart B. Descriptions of the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements mandated by section 609 and
delineated in the CFR are summarized below.
    Approved Refrigerant Handling Equipment: In accordance with Section
609(b)(2)(A), 40 CFR 82.36 requires that refrigerant handling equipment
be certified by EPA or independent standards testing organization.
    Approved independent standards testing organizations: Section
609(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires independent laboratory testing of
refrigerant handling equipment to be certified by EPA. Independent
laboratories must submit an application. EPA does not anticipate that
any new organizations will apply to EPA in the future to become
approved independent standards testing organizations. Therefore,
related annual hours and costs have been eliminated.
    Technician training and certification: According to Section
609(b)(4) of the Act, automotive technicians are required to be trained
and certified in the proper use of approved refrigerant handling
equipment. Programs that perform technician training and certification
activities must apply to the EPA for approval by submitting
verification that its program meets EPA standards. The information
requested is used by the EPA to guarantee a degree of uniformity in the
testing programs for motor vehicle service technicians. The Agency
requires that each approved technician certification program conducts
periodic reviews and updates of test material, submitting a written
summary of the review and program changes to EPA every two years.
    Certification, reporting and recordkeeping: To facilitate
enforcement under Section 609, EPA has developed several recordkeeping
requirements. All required records must be retained on-site for a
minimum of three years, unless otherwise indicated.

    Section 609(c) of the Act states that by January 1, 1992, no person
may service any motor vehicle air conditioner without being properly
trained and certified, nor without using properly approved refrigerant
handling equipment. To this end, 40 CFR 82.42(a) states that by January
1, 1993, each service provider must have submitted to EPA on a one-time
basis a statement signed by the owner of the equipment or another
responsible officer that provides the name of the equipment purchaser,
the address of the service establishment where the equipment will be
located, the manufacturer name, equipment model number, date of
manufacture, and equipment serial number. The statement must also
indicate that the equipment will be properly used in servicing motor
vehicle air conditioners and that each individual authorized by the
purchaser to perform service is property trained and certified. The
information is used to verify compliance.
    Any person who owns approved refrigerant handling equipment must
maintain records of the name and address of any facility to which
refrigerant is sent and must retain records demonstrating that all
persons authorized to operate the equipment are currently certified
technicians.
    Finally, any person who sells or distributes a class I or class II
refrigerant that is in a container of less than 20 pounds must verify
that the purchaser is a properly trained and certified technician,
unless the purchase of small containers is for resale only. In that
case, the seller must obtain a written statement from the purchaser
that the containers are for resale only, and must indicate the
purchaser's name and business address. In all cases, the seller must
display a sign where sales occur that states the certification
requirements for purchasers.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average less
than one hour per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Affected Entities: Motor vehicle dealers, automobile parts stores,
general automotive repair shops, and automotive repair shops not
elsewhere classified.
    Estimated Number of Potential Respondents: 52,614.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 4,523 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Costs: $208,307. This includes $208,307 in
labor costs and no capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a decrease of 2,177 hours in the
total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. There are three reasons for this decrease in
burden hours. Today, it is estimated that there are only 600 thousand
R-12 MVACs on the road, or 80% less than in 2008. Therefore, to account
for the decreased market for small containers of CFC-12 refrigerant,
this ICR estimates that the number of purchases for resale only by
uncertified purchasers of small cans will be 80% less than in 2008. The
second reason for the burden hours decrease is that CFC-12 refrigerant
sent off-site for reclamation to an approved refrigerant reclaimed by
owners of refrigerant recycling equipment certified under 40 CFR
82.36(a) has decreased and is anticipated to continue decreasing due to
the significant decline of CFC-12 vehicles on road. The third reason
for the burden hours decreased is that there are less approved
technician certification programs in business than in the previous ICR.
However, EPA anticipates a slow increase of one organization approval
per year as new alternative refrigerants become available and new
businesses become interested in certifying technicians for MVAC
servicing for consideration.

John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-20505 Filed 8-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7744-7745]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03614]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-0467]

Joint Meeting of the Blood Products Advisory Committee and the
Microbiology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
joint public advisory committee meeting of the Blood Products Advisory
Committee and the Microbiology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee. The Committee will function as a medical device
panel to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on
classification of devices. The Committee will also provide advice and
recommendations to the FDA on research programs in the Office of Blood
Research and Review. At least one portion of the meeting will be closed
to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 21, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5:15
p.m. and March 22, 2018, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Building 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503, sections B&C), Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including
information regarding special accommodations due to a disability,
visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Emery or Joanne Lipkind,
Division of Scientific Advisors and Consultants, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, Bldg. 71, Rm. 6132, at
240-402-8054, [email protected] and Rm. 6270 at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected] respectively, or FDA Advisory Committee
Information Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC
area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications
that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot
always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore,
you should always check the Agency's website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting. For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will
also be available via webcast. The webcast will be available at the
following link for both days: https://collaboration.fda.gov/bpacmdac2018/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: During the morning session on March 21, 2018, the Joint
Committee

will discuss and make recommendations regarding the device
reclassification from Class III to Class II of nucleic acid and
serology-based point-of-care and laboratory-based in vitro diagnostic
devices indicated for use as aids in the diagnosis of human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. In the afternoon session, the
Committee will hear an overview of the research presentations on the
research programs of the Laboratory of Emerging Pathogens, the
Laboratory of Bacterial and Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy
Agents, and the Laboratory of Molecular Virology in the Division of
Emerging Transfusion-Transmitted Diseases, Office of Blood Research and
Review Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. After the open
session, the meeting will be closed to the public to permit discussion
where disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy in accordance with 5 U.S.C 552b(c)(6).
    On March 22, 2018, the Joint Committee will discuss and make
recommendations regarding the reclassification from Class III to Class
II of nucleic acid and serology-based in vitro diagnostic devices
indicated for use as aids in diagnosis of hepatitis C virus (HCV)
infection and/or for use as aids in the management of HCV infected
patients.
    All the devices that will be discussed by the Committee during the
2-day meeting are post-amendment devices that currently are classified
into Class III under section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)).
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its website prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's website after the meeting. Background material is
available at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
March 14, 2018. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 12:25 p.m. to 1:25 p.m. and from 4:25 p.m. to
4:40 p.m. on March 21, 2018, and between approximately 11:15 a.m. to
12:15 p.m. on March 22, 2018. Those individuals interested in making
formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a
brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they
wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and
an indication of the approximate time requested to make their
presentation on or before March 6, 2018. Time allotted for each
presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to
speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the
scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to
determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session.
The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their
request to speak by March 7, 2018.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Bryan Emery at least 7 days in advance of the meeting (See, FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Closed Committee Deliberations: On March 21, 2018, between 4:40
p.m. and 5:15 p.m., the meeting will be closed to permit discussion
where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6)). The recommendations of the
advisory committee regarding the progress of the investigator's
research will, along with other information, be used in making
decisions regarding pay adjustments of service fellows or promotion of
individual scientists who are permanent CBER staff.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our website at https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.)

    Dated: February 15, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-03614 Filed 2-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 41855]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17970]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Columbus Geographic Systems (GIS) Ltd.; Order of Suspension of
Trading

July 13, 2011.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Columbus Geographic Systems (GIS) Ltd. because it has not filed any
periodic reports since the period ended June 30, 2008.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for
the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on July 13, 2011 through 11:59 p.m. EDT
on July 26, 2011.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17970 Filed 7-13-11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 19, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30014-30019]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10423]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0038; Notice 1]

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Pirelli Tire, LLC, Receipt of
Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petitions.

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

SUMMARY: Daimler AG (DAG) and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA)
collectively referred to as ``Mercedes-Benz,'' and Pirelli Tire, LLC
(Pirelli), have determined that certain Pirelli P7 Cinturato RUN FLAT
radial tires installed as original equipment in certain model year (MY)
2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles and sold as replacement
equipment do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light
Vehicles. Pirelli filed a noncompliance report dated February 25, 2019,
and later amended it on March 15, 2019, and Mercedes-Benz filed a
noncompliance report dated March 4, 2019. Pirelli subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on March 18, 2019, and Mercedes-Benz subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on March 27, 2019, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces receipt of Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli's petitions.

DATES: Send comments on or before June 18, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and may be
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petitions are granted or denied, notice of the decisions
will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli have determined that certain
Pirelli P7 Cinturato RUN FLAT radial tires installed as original
equipment in certain MY 2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles and sold
as replacement equipment do not fully comply with paragraph S5.5(c) of
FMVSS No. 139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles (49 CFR
571.139).
    Pirelli filed a noncompliance report dated February 25, 2019, and
later amended it on March 15, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect
and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, and subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on March 18, 2019, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR
part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report dated March 4, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports, and subsequently petitioned NHTSA on March 27, 2019,\1\
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The date on the petition is March 27, 2018. We believe the
petitioner made an error and the intended date is March 27, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli are further referred to as the
petitioners.
    This notice of receipt of the petitioners' petitions is published
under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency
decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the
petition.
    II. Vehicles and Tires Involved: Approximately 2,023 Pirelli P7
Cinturato RUN FLAT replacement radial tires, size 245/45R18 100 Y (the
subject tires), manufactured between April 3, 2017, and February 15,
2019, are potentially involved.
    The subject tires were installed as original equipment on
approximately 206 of the following MY 2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz motor
vehicles, manufactured between May 4, 2017, and February 7, 2019, are
potentially involved:

 2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 4MATIC Cabriolet
 2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 Coupe
 2018 Mercedes-Benz E400 Cabriolet
 2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 4MATIC Cabriolet
 2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 Cabriolet
 2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 Coupe
 2019 Mercedes-Benz E450 4MATIC Coupe

    III. Noncompliance: The petitioners explain that the noncompliance
is that the subject tires, manufactured by Pirelli and sold as
replacement equipment, as well as sold by Mercedes-Benz as original
equipment on certain MY 2018-2019 Mercedes-Benz motor vehicles, were
erroneously marked with the incorrect maximum permissible inflation
pressure. Therefore, the tires do not meet the requirements of
paragraph S5.5(c) of FMVSS No. 139. Specifically, the subject tires are
marked with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa, when
they should have been marked with the maximum inflation pressure of 350
kPa.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.5(c) of FMVSS No. 139, includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. Each tire must be marked on
each sidewall with the information specified in paragraph S5.5(c): The
maximum

permissible inflation pressure, subject to the limitations of S5.5.4
through S5.5.6 of this standard. Specifically, the maximum permissible
inflation pressure is subject to the limitations of paragraph S5.5.4 of
FMVSS No. 139.
    V. Summary of Petition: The following views and arguments presented
in this section, V. Summary of this petition, are the views and
arguments provided by the petitioners. They have not been evaluated by
the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. The petitioners
described the subject noncompliance and stated their belief that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Background: On January 15, 2019, DAG received preliminary
information from the Korea Automobile Testing & Research Institute
(KATRI), that when KATRI tested the subject tires installed on a
Mercedes-Benz vehicle, the subject tires reportedly did not meet the
performance requirements for the strength test. When the subject tire
was tested according to the applicable Korean standard (which Mercedes-
Benz says is equivalent to FMVSS No. 139 in all material respects),
using the test specifications applicable for 340 kPa (the maximum tire
pressure that was indicated on the sidewall) the tire reportedly failed
the strength test. DAG informed Pirelli Deutschland GMBH about the
KATRI testing result on January 18, 2019.
    On February 7, 2019, Pirelli was advised by Pirelli Deutschland
GMBH that it was investigating an informal report from an original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) customer, Mercedes-Benz, that KATRI
allegedly tested the subject tire (fitted onto a DAG vehicle) and that
the tire reportedly did not meet the tread strength (breaking energy)
requirement under the Korean Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (KMVSS)
performance standard ``A,'' which Pirelli says in substance is similar
to the tire strength test contained in FMVSS No. 109 and FMVSS No. 139.
Pirelli's investigation concluded that the subject tires were
erroneously marked with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340
kPa. As a consequence of using test criteria applicable to a 340 kPa
marked tire, however, the KATRI test indicated a test failure.
    In support of their petitions, Pirelli and Mercedes-Benz submitted
the following reasoning:
    1. The Petitioners cited the following noncompliance petitions that
the Agency has granted previously:
    a. Mercedes-Benz cited Continental Tire the America, LLC, Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance. See 83 FR 36668
(July 30, 2018).
    b. Pirelli cited Tireco Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance. See 76 FR 66353 (October 26, 2011).
    c. Mercedes-Benz and Pirelli cited Michelin North America, Grant of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance. See 74 FR 10805
(March 12, 2009).
    Pirelli highlighted that in the Michelin case, the tire was marked
on one sidewall as having a maximum permissible inflation pressure of
``300 kPa,'' while the other sidewall was marked ``350 kPa.'' In
concluding that this noncompliance was inconsequential to safety, NHTSA
cited the following justifications:
    ``Since the load that is marked on both sides of the tire (i.e.,
750 KG (1653 lb.)) is correct; the recommended inflation pressure (240
kPa (35 PSI)) is well below both the correct tire pressure of 300 kPa
(44 PSI), and the incorrectly labeled tire pressure of 350 kPa (51
PSI); and, in any event, the tire was manufactured to safely
accommodate a pressure of 350 kPa (51 PSI), the tire cannot be
inadvertently overloaded.
    2. Mercedes states that the subject tires meet or exceed all
performance and safety requirements for tires with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa, and the mislabeling has no
effect whatsoever on their safety or performance.
    a. These tires were designed and engineered as tires with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa, and they meet or exceed all
of the performance requirements for such tires. Specifically, the tires
meet the applicable specifications contained in FMVSS No. 139 for tire
dimensions under paragraph S6.1, high-speed performance test under
paragraph S6.2, the tire endurance test under paragraph S6.3, the low
inflation pressure test under paragraph S6.4, and the bead unseating
test applicable under paragraph S6.6 (and FMVSS No. 109, paragraph
S5.2). These tires meet the tire strength test specified for tires with
a maximum inflation pressure of 350 kPa, as these tires were designed,
under paragraph S6.5 (and FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.3).
    b. Since these tires were labeled as having a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 340 kPa rather than 350 kPa, the tires would be
subject to a different strength test specification under FMVSS No. 139
(which cross-references FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.3), which they were
not meant to satisfy.
    c. The mislabeling of the tires has no effect on vehicle safety as
compared to tires that are properly and correctly labeled with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa. The error does not
present any risk of over-inflation since the design maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa is higher than the labeled inflation
pressure of 340 kPa. As well, there is no risk of tire under inflation,
since the calculated load-carrying capacity of the tire at 340 kPa is
met and exceeded by the design for 350 kPa.
    d. All of the tire load carrying information labeled on the tire is
correct and, in fact, that information understates the load-carrying
capacity of the tire. Since the tires were designed to have a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa, according to the European
Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO) guides, these tires have a
load-carrying capacity that is higher by 15 to 20 kg.
    e. In accordance with FMVSS No. 110, all vehicles must be equipped
with a placard bearing information regarding the tires, the loading,
and the recommended inflation pressures, which have to be considered
when choosing the tires to fit as a replacement on each vehicle. Since
the design maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa is higher
than the labeled one of 340 kPa, the subject tire is always compliant
to the placard.
    f. The mislabeling does not cause any safety problems, such as
increasing the probability of tire failure, if the tires were inflated
to 350 kPa under a load of 750kg, and it is not likely to result in
unsafe use of the tires. In a similar case, NHTSA granted an
inconsequentiality petition with respect to two tires, where one tire
was mislabeled as having a maximum permissible inflation pressure of
350 kPa instead of 300 kPa, and the other tire was mislabeled as having
a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 300 kPa instead of 350 kPa.
See 80 FR 31092 (June 1, 2015), Continental Tire the Americas, LLC,
Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance. As
NHTSA has acknowledged, ``the choice of the maximum inflation pressure
level then becomes the choice of the tire manufacturer, as long as it
is in compliance with the established values under FMVSS No. 139
paragraph S5.5.4.'' See 74 FR 10806. Both 340 and 350 maximum inflation
pressure levels are acceptable choices for this tire under paragraph
S5.5.4.
    g. NHTSA has previously stated that it has retained the requirement
that tires be marked with the maximum permissible inflation pressure
only ``as an aid in preventing over-inflation,'' for which there is no
risk in this case. See

70 FR 10161 (March 2, 2005), Michelin North America, Inc., Grant of
Application for Decision that Noncompliance is Inconsequential to Motor
Vehicle Safety, concluding that ``the mislabeling issue, in this case,
will in no way contribute to the risk of over-inflation because the
value actually marked is lower than the value required by the
regulations''.
    3. Pirelli stated that the different tire strength test criteria
for tires marked with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of
``340'' vs. ``350'' do not have any real-world safety relevance in this
case.
    a. Since these tires are labeled as having a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 340 kPa rather than 350 kPa, the tires would be
subject to a different strength test criteria under FMVSS No. 109/139,
which they were not meant to satisfy. Due to this labeling error, the
appropriate specification to be applied should be that which is
applicable to the tire as designed, with a maximum permissible
inflation pressure of 350 kPa.
    b. FMVSS No. 139, paragraph S6.5 incorporates the tire strength
test requirements of FMVSS No. 109, paragraph S5.3. Specifically, under
the tire strength test in paragraph S5.3 of FMVSS No. 109 (which is
cross-referenced in paragraph S6.5 of FMVSS No. 139), tires with a
maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa should be tested at
180 kPa, while tires with a maximum pressure of 340 kPa should be
tested at 220 kPa. (See FMVSS No. 109, Table II). When tested at these
pressures using the test procedures specified in FMVSS No. 109, a tire
with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa must have a
minimum breaking energy of 294 joules, while a tire with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa must have a minimum breaking
energy of 588 joules. The subject tires have shown a breaking energy of
455 joules, which far exceeds the requirements for tires marked with a
maximum pressure of 350 kPa (i.e., 54.7% above the required threshold).
    c. The subject tires were developed for a specific Mercedes-Benz
application and, accordingly, they were subject to and fulfilled a very
stringent OEM homologation process, including all customer requirements
related to performance, quality and safety standards.
    d. With specific reference to the Mercedes-Benz applications, the
table below shows the following information for each of the vehicles
for which the tires were fitted as original equipment:
     A summary of vehicle weights under ``Normal Load'' and
``Maximum Load'' operating conditions;
     the recommended tire inflation pressures for ``Normal
Load'' and ``Maximum Load'' operating conditions reported on the
vehicles' placard;
     minimum inflation pressures corresponding to each
vehicles' load condition according to TRA standard; and
     the minimum inflation pressures corresponding to each load
condition according to ETRTO standard, which the tire is intended to be
referred to.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN19MY20.003

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
    e. Either considering the TRA or the ETRTO standard for the maximum
tire load-carrying capacity calculation, a tire with a load index of 96
``Standard Load'' would be appropriate fitment for each of the
identified vehicles and would be more than sufficient to carry the
vehicle's load both under ``Normal Load'' and ``Maximum Load''
conditions. In other words, under the above-reported operating
conditions, a load index 100 ``Extra Load'' tire is not necessary to
carry the vehicle loads.
    f. Considering a tire with load index 96 ``Standard Load,'' and
marked with a maximum permissible inflation pressure of 350 kPa, basing
on the above consideration, for each of the above-mentioned vehicles,
the referenced strength test limit, and testing conditions are
sufficient to achieve all strength test-related standards.
    g. The subject tires are self-supporting ``run flat'' tires
designed with a reinforcing element in the sidewall that carries the
vehicle load under zero (0) kPa inflation pressure operating
conditions, thereby avoiding the complete deflection of the tire
sidewall which may lead to the tire rim roll-off. Thus, even in the
event of a failure of the type that the tire strength test was
originally intended to address, i.e., road hazards, their run flat
design enables the vehicle to maintain stability, drivability, and
control. Accordingly, there are no safety consequences in the event of
such a failure.
    h. The safety of these tires has been confirmed through rigorous
testing under different testing methods focused to measure resistance
to accidental impact damage and tire durability, as summarized below:
     Curb test according to Mercedes-Benz test methodology.
This test was developed to verify the ability of a tire to resist road
hazards. The subject tire fully meets OEM requirements showing
performance in line with the competitor and better than a standard tire
compliant to maximum permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa.
     Maximum Pressure Resistance (static blow out test)
according to Pirelli methodology. This test is designed to measure the
maximum inflation pressure a pneumatic tire is able to resist. The test
results demonstrate that the subject tire is able to resist an
inflation pressure of more than 3000 kPa.
     Rim roll-off test according to VDA (Verband Deutscher
Automobilheresteller) methodology for run flat tires. This test is
designed to verify the maximum lateral acceleration achievable while
driving in a bend with the front radially external tire at zero (0) kPa
inflation pressure.
     Fatigue Test with cleat after artificial aging according
to FORD methodology. This test is designed to verify the structural
integrity of the tire to a very intensive stress in the tread and in
the sidewall area.
     Run flat mileage test according to Mercedes-Benz test
methodology. This test is designed to verify the maximum mileage that
the tire is able to run in the ``flat running'' condition (meaning with
zero (0) kPa inflation pressure due to rim valve not in place for the
duration

of the ``flat running'' phase of the test). It is conducted at a
maximum speed of 80 km/h and limiting the maximum lateral acceleration
to 0.4g. The results demonstrate the capability of the tire to carry
the vehicle partial load (corresponding for this test to 80% of the
vehicle maximum load) for at least 150 km and the vehicle maximum load
for 59 km, ensuring the ability to maintain full control of the vehicle
even if one tire is completely deflated. (A run flat mileage test is
clearly not foreseen by vehicle manufacturers for standard (non-run
flat) tires.)
     Rapid loss of inflation and lane change test performed
with the subject run-flat tire, with the aim to simulate the event of a
sudden air-loss caused by tread damage. This test demonstrates that the
driver is able to easily control the vehicle, performing a lane change
to avoid an obstacle placed on the vehicle's trajectory and to safely
stop it.
     Integrity tests according to Pirelli methodology confirm
the high safety standards to which the subject tire has been designed
and is able to achieve.
    To summarize, even if these tires had been intended to meet the
tire strength test requirements applicable to a tire with a maximum
permissible inflation pressure of 340 kPa, rather than subjected to
such standard as an unintended collateral consequence of the labeling
error, any inability of this particular tire to satisfy the criteria of
the tire strength test is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Neither petitioner is aware of any warranty claims, field reports,
customer complaints, legal claims, or any incidents or injuries related
to the original or the replacement tires. The complete petitions and
all supporting documents are available by logging onto the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov
and by following the online search instructions to locate the docket
number as listed in the title of this notice.
    Pirelli and Mercedes concluded by expressing the belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing
notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and
a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should
be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
these petitions only applies to the subject tires and vehicles that
Pirelli and Mercedes-Benz no longer controlled at the time it
determined that the noncompliance existed. However, any decision on
these petitions does not relieve vehicle and equipment distributors and
dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant tires under their control after Pirelli and Mercedes-
Benz notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-10423 Filed 5-18-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


From:  Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 11:59 AM To:  <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Allen Dittenhoefer'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Knight, Jeffrey A.'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Mary Kaplan'<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Jones, DonnaLee'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:  Coke - EPA responses to Other Emissions File

Hello,

Thank you all very much for your review and comments on the Other Emissions File  -  Fugitive Pushing.

Attached is the EPA's responses to the Fugitive Pushing file: Coke_Fugitive_Pushing_for Industry review_COETF Comments rev121820_EPA010721.xlsx

Please review and provide any comments by 1/19/2021.

Please note, the EPA is awaiting submittal of non-CBI battery-specific capture efficiencies.

Let us know if there are any questions.

Thank you for all your help, Gabrielle

Gabrielle Raymond she/her/hers  RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road P.O. Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

<< Coke_Fugitive_Pushing_for Industry review_COETF Comments rev121820_EPA010721.xlsx >>


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 84 (Monday, May 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26269-26271]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10149]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77708; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated
Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To
Amend NYSE Rule 98 To Provide That, When Designated Market Makers Enter
Interest for the Purpose of Facilitating the Execution of Customer
Orders, Those Orders Would Not Be Required To Be Designated as DMM
Interest

April 26, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On March 4, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend NYSE Rule 98 governing the operation of a
Designated Market Maker (``DMM'') Unit. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on March 15, 2016.\3\ The
Commission received no comments on the proposed rule change. On April
15, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons and is approving the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 77332 (Mar. 9,
2016), 81 FR 13851 (``Notice'').
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 is publicly available at http://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nyse-2016-16/nyse2016-16.shtml. Amendment No. 1 replaced
the original filing in its entirety. In Amendment No. 1, the
Exchange proposes: (1) To clarify that a DMM unit must have received
a customer order before it enters a ``customer-driven order'' in DMM
securities at the Exchange; (2) to specify that a DMM unit entering
a customer-driven order in DMM securities may do so only if the
order is entered on a riskless principal basis or if the order is
entered on a principal basis to provide price improvement to the
customer; and (3) to provide that a mnemonic used to identify a
DMM's customer-driven orders in DMM securities may not be used for
trading activity at the Exchange in DMM securities that are not
customer-driven order, but may be used for trading activities in
securities not assigned to the DMM. Furthermore, the Exchange has
also added additional text to the filing to explain the revisions
contained in Amendment No. 1; to clarify the application of
Regulation SHO to DMM orders marked as ``customer-driven orders,''
see infra note 15; and to clarify other aspects of the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 98 to provide that when
DMMs \5\ enter interest on a proprietary basis for the purpose of
facilitating the execution of customer orders, that interest would not
be required to be designated as DMM interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in NYSE Rule 2(i), the term ``DMM'' means an
individual member, officer, partner, employee or associated person
of a Designated Market Maker Unit who is approved by the Exchange to
act in the capacity of a DMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Background

    The Exchange represents that in 2014 it amended NYSE Rule 98 to
adopt a principles-based approach to prohibit the misuse of material
nonpublic information by a member organization that operates a DMM unit
and to make conforming changes to other Exchange rules.\6\ According to
the Exchange, those rule changes provide member organizations operating
DMM units with the ability to integrate DMM unit trading with other
trading units, while maintaining tailored restrictions to address that
DMMs, while on the Trading Floor,\7\ may have access to certain Floor-
based non-public information. The Exchange states that, by removing
prescriptive restrictions, the 2014 Filing was designed to enable a
member organization that engages in market-making operations on
multiple exchanges to house its DMM operations together with the other
market-making operations, even if those operations are customer-facing,
or to enable a member organization to consolidate all of its equity
trading, including customer-facing operations and the DMM unit, within
a single independent trading unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72534 (July 3,
2014), 79 FR 39019 (July 9, 2014) (Approval Order) and 71837 (Apr.
1, 2014), 79 FR 19146 (Apr. 7, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-12) (``2014
Filing'').
    \7\ See NYSE Rule 6A for the definition of ``Trading Floor.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that NYSE Rule 98(c) sets forth specific
restrictions on the operation of a DMM unit.\8\ Among other
requirements, NYSE Rule 98(c)(4) provides that any interest entered
into Exchange systems by the DMM unit in DMM securities \9\ must be
identifiable as DMM unit interest. NYSE Rule 98(c)(5) provides that a
member organization must provide the Exchange, at such times and in the
manner prescribed by the Exchange, with real-time net position
information for trading in DMM securities by the DMM unit and any
independent trading unit of which it is a part. NYSE Rule 98(d) further
specifies that the DMM rules \10\ will apply only to a DMM unit's
quoting or trading in its DMM securities for its own accounts at the
Exchange. Accordingly, the Exchange states, the DMM rules do not apply
to any customer orders that a member organization that operates a DMM
unit sends to the Exchange as agent.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As defined in NYSE Rule 98(b)(1), the term ``DMM unit''
means a trading unit within a member organization that is approved
pursuant to NYSE Rule 103 to act as a DMM unit.
    \9\ As defined in NYSE Rule 98(b)(2), the term ``DMM
securities'' means any securities allocated to the DMM unit pursuant
to NYSE Rule 103B or other applicable rules.
    \10\ As defined in NYSE Rule 98(b)(3), the term ``DMM rules''
means any rules that govern DMM or DMM unit conduct or trading.
    \11\ See 2014 Filing, supra note 6 at 19152 (specifying that
Rule 98(d) was added because DMM rules are not applicable to any
customer orders routed to the Exchange by a member organization as
agent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, because NYSE Rule 98(c)(4) currently
requires that any interest entered into Exchange systems by the DMM
unit in DMM securities be identifiable as DMM interest, a DMM unit that
is integrated with a customer-facing unit and that sends customer
orders in DMM securities to the Exchange in a proprietary capacity must
identify those customer orders as DMM interest. As a result, although
agency orders are not subject to DMM rules, customer-driven interest
entered by a DMM unit on a proprietary basis is subject to all DMM
rules.
    The Exchange states that none of its member organizations operating
a DMM have integrated a DMM unit with a customer-facing trading unit.
The Exchange believes that the current rule requiring customer-driven
orders that are represented on a proprietary basis to be designated as
DMM interest has served as a barrier to achieving such integration.\12\
Specifically, according to

the Exchange, there are certain scenarios when the rules governing DMMs
may conflict with a member organization's obligations with respect to
its customers' orders. For example, DMMs are not permitted to enter
Market Orders, MOO Orders, CO Orders, MOC Order, LOC Orders, or orders
with Sell ``Plus''--Buy ``Minus'' Instructions.\13\ However, the
Exchange represents that, to comply with customer instructions, a
customer-driven order entered by a member organization on a proprietary
basis may need to use one of these order types. As another example, the
Exchange states that DMMs are restricted from engaging in specified
trading in the last ten minutes of trading before the close of
trading.\14\ But, according to the Exchange, a member organization may
have a best-execution obligation to route a customer-driven order to
the Exchange in the last ten minutes of trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ According to the Exchange, it is a common practice among
market makers that operate as wholesalers, and thus have their own
customer orders as well as retail order flow from another broker
dealer, to facilitate the execution of customer order flow by
representing it on a proprietary basis when those orders are routed
to an exchange. Once a customer-driven order that has been
represented on a proprietary basis on the Exchange has been
executed, the market maker uses the position acquired on the
Exchange to fill the customer order either on a riskless-principal
basis or with price improvement to the customer.
    \13\ See NYSE Rule 104(b)(vi).
    \14\ See NYSE Rule 104(g)(i)(A)(III) (defining Prohibited
Transactions). Specifically, according to the Exchange, a DMM with a
long position in a security is prohibited from making a purchase in
a security that results in a new high price on the Exchange for the
day, and a DMM with a short position in a security is prohibited
from making a sale in that security that results in a new low price
for the day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Proposed Modifications

    The Exchange proposes to replace the phrase ``any interest'' with
the phrase ``proprietary interest'' in NYSE Rule 98(c)(4) to clarify
that the existing rule only governs proprietary interest of a DMM unit,
i.e., interest for the account of the member organization. As further
proposed, the Exchange would amend NYSE Rule 98(c)(4) to provide that
proprietary interest entered into Exchange systems by the DMM unit in
DMM securities would not be required to be identifiable as DMM unit
interest if that interest is (1) represented on a riskless principal
basis, or on a principal basis to provide price improvement to the
customer; and (2) for the purpose of facilitating the execution of an
order received from a customer (whether the DMM unit's own customer or
the customer of another broker-dealer). The Exchange proposes to define
such interest as a ``customer-driven order.'' A member organization
entering a customer-driven order would need to have received a customer
order before entering a customer-driven order at the Exchange.
    The Exchange also proposes to amend NYSE Rule 98(c)(4) to specify
that a DMM unit must use a unique mnemonic that identifies to the
Exchange its customer-driven orders in DMM securities. Such mnemonics
may not be used for trading activity at the Exchange in DMM securities
that are not customer-driven orders, but may be used for trading
activities in securities not assigned to the DMM. The Exchange believes
that requiring a separate mnemonic for customer-driven orders would
assist the Exchange in monitoring DMM unit compliance with the proposed
rule.
    The Exchange further proposes to amend NYSE Rule 98(d) to specify
that the rules, fees, or credits applicable to DMM quoting or trading
activity would apply only to a DMM unit's quoting or trading in its DMM
securities that is for its own account at the Exchange and that has
been identified as DMM interest. In addition, the Exchange proposes to
add text to NYSE Rule 98(d) to state that (1) customer-driven orders
for the account of a DMM unit that have not been identified as DMM
interest would not be subject to DMM rules or be eligible for any fees
or credits applicable to DMM quoting or trading activity; and (2)
customer-driven orders not designated as DMM interest would not be
subject to DMM rules, which include restrictions on the availability of
certain order types and the entry of specified orders during the last
ten minutes of trading.
    The Exchange represents that the NYSE Rule 98(c)(5) obligation to
provide the Exchange with real-time net position information in DMM
securities would continue to be applicable to the DMM unit's position
in DMM securities together with any position of a Regulation SHO
independent trading unit of which the DMM unit may be included,
regardless of whether they are positions resulting from trades in away
markets, trades as a result of DMM interest entered at the Exchange, or
customer-driven orders routed to the Exchange that were not identified
as DMM interest.\15\ The Exchange also proposes a non-substantive
amendment to NYSE Rule 98(c)(5) to delete the term ``for trading,''
which the Exchange believes is extraneous rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Under Regulation SHO, determination of a seller's net
position is based on the seller's position in the security in all of
its accounts, absent aggregation unit treatment under Rule 200(f) of
Regulation SHO. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50103 (July
28, 2004), 69 FR 48008, 48010, n.22 (Aug. 6, 2004); see also
Securities Exchange Act Release Not 48709 (Oct. 29, 2003), 68 FR
62972, 62991 and 62994 (Nov. 6, 2003); Letter from Richard R.
Lindsey, Director, Division of Market Regulation, to Roger D. Blanc,
Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, SEC No-Action Letter, 1998 SEC No-Act.
LEXIS 1038, p. 5 (Nov. 23, 1998); Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 30772 (June 3, 1992), 57 FR 24415, 24419 n.47 (June 9, 1992);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27938 (Apr. 23, 1990), 55 FR
17949, 17950 (Apr. 30, 1990). The Commission adopted a narrow
exception to Regulation SHO's ``locate'' requirement only for market
makers engaged in bona-fide market making in the security at the
time they effect the short sale. See 17 CFR 242.203(b)(2)(iii); see
also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 50103 (July 28, 2004), 69
FR 48008, 48015 (Aug. 6, 2004); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
58775 (Oct. 14, 2008), 73 FR 61690, 61698-9 (Oct. 17, 2008). Broker-
dealers would not be able to rely on the Exchange's or any self-
regulatory organization's designation of market marking for
eligibility for the bona-fide market making exception to the
``locate'' requirement, as such designations are distinct and
independent from Regulation SHO. Further, the Exchange's designation
of proprietary interest or any exclusion from proprietary interest
for purposes of NYSE rules is not relevant for purposes of
Regulation SHO. Eligibility for the bona-fide market making
exception depends on the facts and circumstances and a determination
of bona-fide market making is based on the Commission's factors
outlined in the aforementioned Regulation SHO releases. It should
also be noted that a determination of bona-fide market making is
relevant for the purposes of the close-out obligations under Rule
204 of Regulation SHO. See 17 CFR 242.204(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder
applicable to a national securities exchange.\16\ In particular, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ which requires, among other things,
that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed rule change will help to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the
public interest, because the Exchange has proposed a mechanism that is
reasonably designed to distinguish a DMM unit's own proprietary trading
on the Exchange in its assigned securities from a DMM unit's activity
in representing customer orders as principal. In light of the market-
making privileges and obligations of DMMs, the Exchange has

imposed certain restrictions on a DMM unit's trading in assigned
securities, but those restrictions, according to the Exchange, may
cause a conflict with a DMM unit's obligations to its customer when
representing that customer's order as principal. The Commission
believes that the proposal is reasonably designed to permit DMM units
to comply with their obligations when engaging in proprietary trading
on the Exchange in assigned securities, while also allowing a DMM unit
to comply with customer instructions and the duty of best execution
when representing customer orders as principal.
    The Commission also notes that the Exchange's proposal includes
certain safeguards that should help to prevent potential mismarking of
orders as ``customer-driven orders'' and to assist the Exchange in
monitoring for compliance by DMM units with Rule 98 as amended. The
Commission notes that, under the proposal, all proprietary interest
entered into Exchange systems by the DMM unit in DMM securities will be
considered DMM unit interest unless that interest is (1) for the
purpose of facilitating the execution of an order that has already been
received from a customer (whether the DMM unit's own customer or the
customer of another broker-dealer); and (2) represented on a riskless
principal basis, or on a principal basis to provide price improvement
to the customer. Moreover, the Commission notes that a DMM unit must
use a unique mnemonic that identifies to the Exchange its customer-
driven orders in DMM securities.
    Finally, the Commission notes that the Exchange represents that
this proposed rule change would not alter in any way a member
organization's existing obligations under Section 15(g) of the Act,\18\
Regulation SHO,\19\ NYSE Rule 5320, or to maintain policies and
procedures to ensure that a member organization does not engage in any
frontrunning of customer order information in violation of Exchange,
FINRA, or federal securities laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78o(g).
    \19\ 17 CRF 242.201.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the above reasons, the Commission finds that the proposal, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of the
Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 1

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2016-16 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2016-16. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; 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-2016-16 and should be
submitted on or before May 23, 2016.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    The Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior to the 30th day after the
date of publication of notice of Amendment No. 1 in the Federal
Register. In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange proposes: (1) To clarify
that a DMM unit must have received a customer order before it enters a
``customer-driven order'' in DMM securities at the Exchange; (2) to
specify that a DMM unit entering a customer-driven order in DMM
securities may do so only if the order is entered on a riskless
principal basis or if the order is entered on a principal basis to
provide price improvement to the customer; and (3) to provide that a
mnemonic used to identify a DMM's customer-driven orders in DMM
securities may not be used for trading activity at the Exchange in DMM
securities that are not customer-driven order, but may be used for
trading activities in securities not assigned to the DMM.
    The Commission believes that the revisions proposed in Amendment
No. 1 are designed to prevent abuse and facilitate surveillance of the
new rules. Therefore, the Commission finds that Amendment No. 1 is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
    Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\20\ to approve the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\21\ that the proposed rule change (NYSE-2016-16), as modified by
Amendment No. 1, be, and it hereby is, approved on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10149 Filed 4-29-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P